Itxa/2467/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5 Mumbai v. Barmecha's Impex Pvt Ltd
High Court
21 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2467/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5 Mumbai v. Barmecha's Impex Pvt Ltd
Date of order
21 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/2467/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5 Mumbai v. Barmecha's Impex 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. 2467 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-5
.. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Barmecha's Impex Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent
Mr. Abhay Ahuja a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for the appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
P.C.
DATED : 21[st] NOVEMBER, 2018.
1.This appeal challenges the order dated 26[th] August, 2009 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2.Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appealinvites our attention to the Circular No.3/2008 dated 11[th] July, 2018issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which inter alia directs theRevenue not to press the pending appeals where the tax effect is lessthan Rs.50 lakhs.
3.In view of the above Circular, Mr. Ahuja has been instructed notto press the appeal as the tax effect involved in the present 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.)
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.