Itxa/1055/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-2 v. Dhun Jehan Contractor
High Court
14 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1055/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-2 v. Dhun Jehan Contractor
Date of order
14 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1055/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-2 v. Dhun Jehan Contractor, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2016
Commissioner of Income Tax-2
v/s. M/s. Dhun Jehan Contractor
.. Appellant
.. Respondent
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 17 OF 2016
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2016
M/s. Dhun Jehan Contractor
.. Appellant
v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax-2.. Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant
Mr. Jignesh Shah for the respondent in ITXA 1055/16 and for theappellant in CROL 17/16
P.C.
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
DATED : 14[th] DECEMBER, 2018.
1.This appeal challenges the order dated 13[th] May, 2015 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2.Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing in support of theappeal invites our attention to the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11[th] July,2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which inter aliadirects the Revenue not to press the pending appeals where the taxeffect is less than Rs.50 lakhs.
3.In view of the above Circular, Mr. Tejveer Singh has beeninstructed not to press the appeal as the tax effect involved in thepresent appeal is less than the threshold limits of Rs.50 lakhs.
4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Refund ofCourt Fees as per Rules.
5.Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in CrossObjection states that in view of the withdrawal of the appeal, the crossobjection is also not being pressed. Therefore, the cross objection isalso dismissed as infructuous.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
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.