Case LawHigh Court › Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle...

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Muzaffarpur v. Kanhaiya Prasad, M/S Monghyr Construction Company Akashdeep Nayatola, Muzaffarpur

High Court 05 Jan 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Muzaffarpur v. Kanhaiya Prasad, M/S Monghyr Construction Company Akashdeep Nayatola, Muzaffarpur
Date of order
05 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Muzaffarpur v. Kanhaiya Prasad, M/S Monghyr Construction Company Akashdeep Nayatola, Muzaffarpur, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.149 of 2010 ====================================================== Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Versus .... .... Appellant/s Kanhaiya Prasad, M/S Monghyr Construction Company Akashdeep Nayatola, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. S.C. Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra, Jr. S.C. For the Respondent/s : CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 3 05-01-2015 Learned counsel for the appellant- Income Tax Department submits that tax effect in the present Appeal is to the extent of Rs. 3,72,000/- only. From the circular of the C.B.D.T. applicable at the relevant time in order to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Act the tax effect of the matter ought to be above Rs. 4,00,000/- and only if a substantial question of law of a recurring nature is involved the said limit can be ignored. In the present matter, learned counsel for the appellant- Income Tax Department is unable to satisfy us regarding there being any substantial question of law involved in the matter as the findings under challenge appear to be those of issues of fact. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Vikash Jain,J) Chandran/Md. IbrarulU
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan