Itxa/440/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 25 v. M/S.global Energy Food Industries
High Court
03 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/440/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 25 v. M/S.global Energy Food Industries
Date of order
03 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/440/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 25 v. M/S.global Energy Food Industries, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.440 OF 2016
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-25
.. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Global Energy Food Industries
.. Respondent
Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
P.C.
DATED : 3[rd] DECEMBER, 2018.
1.This appeal challenges the order dated 4[th] March, 2015 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2.Ms. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing in support of theappeal invites our attention to the Circular No.3/2008 dated 11[th] July,2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which inter aliadirects the Revenue not to press the pending appeals where the taxeffect is less than Rs.50 lakhs.
3.In view of the above Circular, Ms. Bharucha has been instructed
not to 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.