Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. M/S Yatheemkhana & Madrassaanjuman Kahirul Islam
High Court
29 Jul 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. M/S Yatheemkhana & Madrassaanjuman Kahirul Islam
Date of order
29 Jul 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. M/S Yatheemkhana & Madrassaanjuman Kahirul Islam, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Decision: 2In the light of Circular No.17 of 2019, the Appeal is disposed of asinvolving low tax effect.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Chittewan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.931 OF 2014
Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai Versus
…Appellant
M/s Yatheemkhana & MadrassaAnjuman Kahirul Islam
…Respondent
***
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for the Respondent.
***
CORAM :DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 29 JULY 2022
P. C. :
.Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant states thatthe tax effect in the present Appeal is below the limit stipulated in termsof Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8 August 2019. It is stated that noinstructions have been received from the Department to withdraw thepresent Appeal.
2In the light of Circular No.17 of 2019, the Appeal is disposed of asinvolving low tax effect.
3However, we observe that in case, the Revenue finds for somereason that the Appeal was not supposed to have been withdrawn in thelight of the Circular, it would be open to the Revenue to file an applicationseeking restoration of the Appeal to be decided on its own merits. Refundof Court-fees as per rules.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)
RAJESHDigitally signed byRAJESH VASANTVASANTCHITTEWANCHITTEWANDate: 2022.07.2917:31:25 +0530
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.