Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. M/S. Chinsha Property Pvt Ltd
High Court
15 Jan 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. M/S. Chinsha Property Pvt Ltd
Date of order
15 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. M/S. Chinsha Property Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2016
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai.. Appellant VsVsM/s. Chinsha Property Pvt Ltd.. Respondent
...................
Mr. Sham Walve for the Appellant
Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Manish Kanth i/by Mr. Atul Jasani for theRespondentRespondent
...................
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 15, 2019.
P.C.:
1.This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for
short) has been filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal.Tribunal.
2.The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal, states that he has
been instructed to withdraw this appeal. This is for the reason that the tax effectinvolved in this appeal is less than the threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as provided inCBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018.
3.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
4.Refund of court fees as per rules.
[ M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]
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.
EaseValue