Itxa/3/2008 Of The Commissione Of Income-Tax,City-18,Mum v. M/S Looms India
High Court
15 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3/2008 Of The Commissione Of Income-Tax,City-18,Mum v. M/S Looms India
Date of order
15 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
1997-98
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/3/2008 Of The Commissione Of Income-Tax,City-18,Mum v. M/S Looms India, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-18,Mumbai….Appellant V/s.M/s. Looms India, Mumbai….Respondent
Mr. A.R. Malhotra, a/w. Mr. N.A. Kazi, for the Appellant.
Mr. V.S. Hadade for the Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.DATE :15TH JANUARY 2016.
P.C.:
1.This Appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1997-98.
2.Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the Revenue, points out that the tax effect in the present Appeal is of Rs.15.41 lakhs, as indicated in paragraph No.10 of the Memo of Appeal. The aforesaid amount is less than the threshold limit prescribed in the C.B.D.T. Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10[th] December 2015, wherein the Officers of the Revenue have been directed to challenge the orders of the Tribunal only where the tax effect is not less than Rs.20 lakhs and to withdraw and/or not press pending appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
3.In view of the above C.B.D.T. Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10[th ]December 2015, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for Revenue, does not press the present Appeal.
4.Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
5.Refund of Court fees as per rules.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, 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.