Case LawHigh Court › Nma/4150/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/4150/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-19, Mumbai v. Abdul Majid F. Mansuri

High Court 11 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/4150/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-19, Mumbai v. Abdul Majid F. Mansuri
Date of order
11 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/4150/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-19, Mumbai v. Abdul Majid F. Mansuri, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4150 0F 2005 WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1746 OF 2005AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4160 0F 2005 WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1745 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4150 0F 2005 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1746 OF 2005 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4160 0F 2005 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1745 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Abdul Majid F. Mansuri ..Respondent. Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant. Ms.Aasifa Khan for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- As the tax incidence is less than Rs.4 lakhs and considering the CBDT circular, we find that the appeals ought not to have been filed. Question of law, if any are left open for consideration in an appropriate case. Hence the Motion and Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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