Case LawHigh Court › Rpa/20/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Ta...

Rpa/20/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Yasmin Texturising P.ltd

High Court 04 Aug 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Rpa/20/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Yasmin Texturising P.ltd
Date of order
04 Aug 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rpa/20/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Yasmin Texturising P.ltd, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.

Decision: 4.The review petition is accordingly disposed of.

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 JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 27 OF 2017 ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2013 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai .. Petitioner In the matter betweenCommissioner of Income Tax-1.. Appellant .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Yasmin Texturising P. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the petitioner Mr. Subhash Shetty for the respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, J.J. DATED : 4[th] AUGUST, 2017 P.C. 1.Heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2.It is submitted that the appeal was wrongly withdrawn on the premise that the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the case is of audit objection as such, the same is not covered by the CBDT circular dated 10[th] December 2015, more particularly, para 8C of the said circular. 3.Considering the above, the order dated 14[th] June, 2017 stands recalled and the appeal is restored to its original position. 4.The review petition is accordingly disposed of. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, 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