Case Law › High Court › Mait/37/2006 Of Commissioner Income Tax-...

Mait/37/2006 Of Commissioner Income Tax-Ii v. The Suptdt.(M) Manager

High Court 19 Nov 2019 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · mphc_db_jbp

Parties

Date of order

19 Nov 2019

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mait/37/2006 Of Commissioner Income Tax-Ii v. The Suptdt.(M) Manager, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty asprayed for.

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

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMAIT-37-2006 (COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-IIVs THE SUPTDT.(M) MANAGER) [19][-][11][-][2019]Jabalpur, Dated : Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant/revenue states that since the taxeffect involved is much below the limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019dated 8.8.2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section),New Delhi, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, heprayed that liberty be granted to the Revenue to file an application for revivalof the appeal, in case something survives therein. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty asprayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by theRevenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal onmerits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the Revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)CHIEF JUSTICEJUDGE aks

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.