Itxa/3169/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Mumbai v. Ge Nesys International Corporation Ltd
High Court
02 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3169/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Mumbai v. Ge Nesys International Corporation Ltd
Date of order
02 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/3169/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Mumbai v. Ge Nesys International Corporation 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3169 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8
.. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Genesys International Corporation Ltd.
..Respondent
Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant Mr. Sameer Dalal for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J.
DATED : 2[nd] MARCH, 2016.
P.C.
1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2003-04.
2.Mr. Arvind Pinto, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10[th ] December, 2015. In particular, our attention invited to paragraphs 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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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. 15.60 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Appeal Memo.
4.In view of the above, Mr. Arvind Pinto, 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.
(B.P. COLABAWALLA, 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.