Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/497/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/497/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, 11, Mumbai v. Shah Construction Co. Ltd

High Court 01 Jul 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/497/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, 11, Mumbai v. Shah Construction Co. Ltd
Date of order
01 Jul 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/497/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, 11, Mumbai v. Shah Construction Co. Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed asnot pressed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

SKN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 497 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax 11, Mumbai.…Appellant.V/s.Shah Construction Co.Ltd.…Respondent. Mr.Arvind Pinto for the appellant.Mr.M.Subramanian i/b. Mr.Vishnu Hadade for the respondent. CORAM :AKIL KURESHI AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.DATE :1st July 2019. P.C.: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') has been filed challenging the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. 2.The learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal,states that he has been instructed to withdraw this appeal. This is for thereason that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than the thresholdlimit of Rs.50 lakh, as provided in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11[th]July, 2018. 3.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed asnot pressed. 4.Refund of Court fees, as per Rules. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan