Case Law › High Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v....

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v. Kusum Choudhary, Choudhary Sadan, Hamir Colony, Madanganj,Kishangarh

High Court 28 Sep 2018 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · jaipur

Parties

Date of order

28 Sep 2018

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v. Kusum Choudhary, Choudhary Sadan, Hamir Colony, Madanganj,Kishangarh, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In view of above, present appeal is dismissed in the light ofaforesaid instruction.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 235/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus Kusum Choudhary, Choudhary Sadan, Hamir Colony, Madanganj,Kishangarh ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 28/09/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view ofCircular No. 3/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes,present appeal having tax effect of only Rs. 21,37,292/- which isless than Rs. 50,00,000/- may not be maintainable. In view of above, present appeal is dismissed in the light ofaforesaid instruction. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Om/5

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.