Case LawHigh Court › Mr. Sham v. Dated : 14[Th] June, 2017

Mr. Sham v. Dated : 14[Th] June, 2017

High Court 14 Jun 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mr. Sham v. Dated : 14[Th] June, 2017
Date of order
14 Jun 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mr. Sham v. Dated : 14[Th] June, 2017, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.

Decision: 4.The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn.

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 JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. M/s. Mubarak Constructions .. Appellant .. Respondent Mr. Sham V. Walve for the appellantMr. Ruturaj H. Gurjar /b Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent P.C. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J. DATED : 14[th] JUNE, 2017 1.This appeal relates to assessment for block period from 01.04.1995 to 27.12.2001. 2.The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10[th] December, 2015, the department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs. 3.In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeal. 4.The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. No costs. 5.The Court Fees as per Rules, be refunded. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, 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