Case LawHigh Court › Nma/2202/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/2202/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I Mumbai v. M/S. Kesar Enterprises Ltd

High Court 18 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2202/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I Mumbai v. M/S. Kesar Enterprises Ltd
Date of order
18 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/2202/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I Mumbai v. M/S. Kesar Enterprises Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Needless to saythat the appeal also stands dismissed.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2202 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 1194 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax....AppellantV/s.M/s.Kesar Enterprises Ltd....Respondents. ====== Mr.Benny Chatterji with Mr.A.S.Rao, Advocate for theAppellants.Ms.Asifa Khan, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.DATED: 18TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :1.This Motion is taken out by the appellant forcondonation of delay. There is 420 days delay infiling the appeal. Affidavit-in-reply has been filedby Mr.Devendra J. Shah, Company Secretary of therespondent company. Paragraph 7 thereof reads asunder: "7.I further state that the tax effect inthe said appeal is less than Rs.4 lacs(i.e.Rs.2,00,000/-) hence, this appeal cannotsurvive as per the Circular of the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes. Further, even on themerit of the case the issue is covered infavour of the respondent by the decision ofthe Apex Court in the case of CIT v.NewHorizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. (269 ITR 397)." 2. There is no dispute about the fact that tax effectof this bill is about Rs.2 lacs. Learned counsel forthe appellant does not dispute that in view of thecircular referred to in the above quoted paragraph inthe facts of this case the appeal cannot beentertained. Hence, motion dismissed. Needless to saythat the appeal also stands dismissed. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, 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