Case LawHigh Court › Income Tax Appeal v. Shri Purushottam N....

Income Tax Appeal v. Shri Purushottam N.patil,Malkapur

High Court 25 Jul 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Income Tax Appeal v. Shri Purushottam N.patil,Malkapur
Date of order
25 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Income Tax Appeal v. Shri Purushottam N.patil,Malkapur, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 86/2007(Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur vs. Shri Purushottam N.Patil,Malkapur) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coramappearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order .................................................................................................................................................................. Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for appellant CORAM: A.P.LAVANDE & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATED: 25th JULY, 2007. *** 1.Mr. A.S.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant states that tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs. 4 lakhs and, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal, in view of Circular dated 5[th] June, 2007 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. 2.Leave granted. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. 3.Registrar (J) of this Court to refund the court fees to the appellant, if permissible under the Rules. sahare JUDGE JUDGE
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