Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1307/2008 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1307/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Eurotex Industries And Exports Ltd., Mumbai

High Court 09 Aug 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1307/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Eurotex Industries And Exports Ltd., Mumbai
Date of order
09 Aug 2018
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1307/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Eurotex Industries And Exports Ltd., Mumbai, the High Court (2018) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Uday S. Jagtap THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Eurotex Industries & Exports Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. Sham Walve for the appellant Mr. Pankaj R. Toprani for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.J. DATED : 9[th] AUGUST, 2018. P.C. 1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2001-02. 2.Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invitedour attention to Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11[th] July, 2018 issued bythe Central Board for Direct Tax (CBDT). The above Circular directsthe Officers of the Revenue not to file appeals to the High Court wherethe tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. It also directs its Officers towithdraw / not press its pending appeals where the tax effect is lessthan Rs.50 lakhs. This, of course, if it does not fall in the excludedclass of appeals listed therein. Digitallysigned by3.UdayUday ShivajiJagtapShivajiDate:2018.08.13Jagtap10:53:50+0530UdayUday ShivajiJagtapShivajiDate:2018.08.13Jagtap10:53:50+0530 In view of the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11[th] July, 2018 issued by the CBDT, Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue,on instructions from Mr. P. Satish Reddy, ACIT, does not press thepresent Appeal. 4.Accordingly, Appeal dismissed, as withdrawn. 5.Refund of Court Fees, if any, as per Rules. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, 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