Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1570/2013 Of The Income Tax Officer...

Nma/1570/2013 Of The Income Tax Officer -12 (2) (1) v. Sanjeev Woolen Mills

High Court 15 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1570/2013 Of The Income Tax Officer -12 (2) (1) v. Sanjeev Woolen Mills
Date of order
15 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/1570/2013 Of The Income Tax Officer -12 (2) (1) v. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3.Consequently, the Review Petition also does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. [DR.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1570 OF 2013 INREVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.75 OF 2012ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5531 OF 2010 ALONG WITH REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.75 OF 2012ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5531 OF 2010 Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(1), Mumbai….Applicant In the matter between Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(1),Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai.….Appellant V/s.Sanjeev Woolen Mills, Mumbai….Respondent Mr. Ashok Kotangale, a/w. Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Applicant. Mr. S.P. Goyal, Director of Respondent-Mill, is present in person. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.DATE :15TH JANUARY 2016. P.C.: 1.Mr. Kotangale, learned counsel appearing in support of the Notice of Motion in the Review Petition, states that in view of the C.B.D.T. Circular bearing No.21 of 2015 dated 10[th] December 2015, he does not seek to prosecute the Notice of Motion and the Review Petition, as, admittedly, the tax effect in the present Appeal is Rs.4.53 lacs, as stated in paragraph No.11 of the Appeal Memo, being the 100% penalty imposed upon the Respondent. 2.In the above view, as the amounts are less than the threshold limit prescribed in the C.B.D.T. Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10[th] December 2015, Mr. Kotangale does not press the Notice of Motion. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed as not pressed. 3.Consequently, the Review Petition also does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. [DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, 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