Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1078/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1078/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vii, Mumbai v. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd

High Court 24 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1078/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vii, Mumbai v. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
24 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1078/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vii, Mumbai v. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd, 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. 1078 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. B.D. Damodar I/b Kanga & Co. for the respondent P.C. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. DATED : 24[th] NOVEMBER, 2018. 1.This appeal challenges the order dated 29[th] May, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing in support of theappeal invites our attention to the Circular No.3/2008 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. Suresh Kumar 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. 5.Refund of Court Fees as per Rules. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)
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