Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Ramdev Mandhani Huf, C
High Court
15 Dec 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Ramdev Mandhani Huf, C
Date of order
15 Dec 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Ramdev Mandhani Huf, C, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
TAXC No. 37 of 2022
Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
Ramdev Mandhani HUF, C - 295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant:Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate.For Respondent:None
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
15/12/2022
It is submitted by Mr. Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that as the value of the appeal is Rs. 14,35,500/-, this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not be maintainable in view of the Circular No. 17/2019, issued by Memo No. F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Judicial Section, dated 08.08.2019, whereby monetary limit for preferring an appeal before the High Court is fixed at Rs. 1,00,00,000.00.
2.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Amit
Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel)JUDGE
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.
EaseValue