Itxa/2457/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai v. M/S Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd
High Court
07 Apr 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2457/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai v. M/S Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
07 Apr 2016
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/2457/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai v. M/S Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5.Accordingly, 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
hcs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2457 OF 2013
Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Mumbai
.. Appellant
v/s. M/s. Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr. Ashok Kotangale with Ms. Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr. Jitendra Jain with Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, JJ.
P.C.
DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2016.
1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2007-08.
2.Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel for the Revenue invited our
attention to Circular No.21/2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct
Tax dated 10[th] December, 2015. In particular, our attention directing the Revenue is invited to paragraph 3 and 10 therein which read as under :-
“3:-Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:-
It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”
“10:-This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
3.In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 17.12 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Appeal Memo.
4.In view of the above, Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press the present Appeal.
5.Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as not pressed.
6.Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.
(A.K. MENON, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.