Case Law › High Court › Iapl/217/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Iapl/217/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Shri Om Vanaspati Udyog

High Court 25 Sep 2018 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · cisdb_16012018

Parties

Date of order

25 Sep 2018

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Iapl/217/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Shri Om Vanaspati Udyog, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as notmaintainable in view of the Circular No.3 of2018 of F.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 217 of 2010 Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax-IRespondent :- M/S Shri Om Vanaspati UdyogCounsel for Appellant :- A.N. Mahajan (Sc-It),Ashok Kumar,Krishna Agarwal,R.K. UpadhyayCounsel for Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Heard Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counselfor the appellant and Shri Shakeel Ahmad,learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel forthe department states that the tax effectinvolved in this appeal is below the monetarylimit. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as notmaintainable in view of the Circular No.3 of2018 of F. No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.),Government of India, Ministry of Finance,Department of Revenue, Central Board ofDirect Taxes dated 11.07.2018. Order Date :- 25.9.2018 pks

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.