Itta/748/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Hetro Drugs Ltd
High Court
21 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/748/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Hetro Drugs Ltd
Date of order
21 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/748/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Hetro Drugs Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Permission is accorded and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHYI.T.T.A.No.748 of 2006
ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
In this appeal, Ms.K.Mamata, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department, has submitted a letter from the Income TaxDepartment requesting him to withdraw their appeal, in view of the circularinstructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No.21of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 whereby the appeals, whose monetary limit isbelow Rs.20,00,000/-, were required to be withdrawn. Learned SeniorStanding Counsel requests that the appellant may be permitted towithdraw the appeal.
Permission is accorded and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
21[st] March, 2016JSU
___________________________________
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
JSU
I.T.T.A.No.748 of 2006
Date: 21.03.2016
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