Case Law › High Court › Itr/29/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Itr/29/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Unique Builders And Engineers, Nagpur

High Court 02 Jul 2007 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · testcase

Parties

Date of order

02 Jul 2007

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itr/29/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Unique Builders And Engineers, Nagpur, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 29 OF 2002(CIT .v. Unique Builders and Engineers) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coramappearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Ordersand Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR &B.P. DHARMADHIKAR, JJ. 02ND JULY, 2007 Learned Counsel for the revenue states that the tax effect involved in this reference is Rs. 73,220/-. In view of the smallness of the tax effect and the decision of this Court in CIT .v. Pithwa EngineeringWorks (reported in (2005) 276 ITR 519), and in view of the Board Circular dated 5[th] June, 2007 issued in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT,Mumbai .v. M/s. Vitessee Trading Ltd. (ITA(L) 118/2003decided on 23rd April, 2007), this reference is returned unanswered. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.