In Itxa/28/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 v. Birendra M. Sharma, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In any case, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.28 OF 2012
Commissioner of Income Tax-18VersusBirendra M. Sharma
..Appellant
..Respondent
...........
None for the Revenue.
...........
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 10[th] AUGUST, 2016
P.C.:
This Appeal relates to Assessment block period from 1.4.1990 to 24.12.2000.
2.None appears in support of the appeal on behalf of the Revenue. It appears that the Revenue is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. We note that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.5.41 lakhs as indicated in para 10 of the memo of appeal. This possibly explains the non-appearance on behalf of the appellant-revenue before us. In any case, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(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.
EaseValue