Case Law › High Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-29,...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-29, Mumbai v. S.r. Shipping Agency

High Court 03 Sep 2018 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

03 Sep 2018

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-29, Mumbai v. S.r. Shipping Agency, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

Decision: Pinto, this appeal is disposed of aswithdrawn.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

suresh 21-ITXA-385.2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.385 OF 2016 Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax-29, MumbaiVs.S.R. Shipping Agency .... Appellant .... Respondent Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.Ms Rutuja N. Pawar for the Respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2018 P.C: 1.Mr. Arvind Pinto states that he has receivedinstructions from Senior Revenue Official not to press thisappeal because of the low tax effect. In view of theseinstructions received by Mr. Pinto, this appeal is disposed of aswithdrawn. However, we clarify that the questions proposed bythe Revenue in this appeal are kept open for consideration in anappropriate case. Page 1 of 2 suresh 21-ITXA-385.2016.doc 2.Refund of Court fee as per rules. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Digitally signedSureshby SureshJagdishJagdishSajnawatDate:2018.09.05Sajnawat13:31:29 +0530 Page 2 of 2

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.