Case Law › High Court › Taxc/96/2017 Of Assistant Commissioner O...

Taxc/96/2017 Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Moha Sukumaran

High Court 12 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · cghccisdb

Parties

Date of order

12 Jul 2017

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Taxc/96/2017 Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Moha Sukumaran, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 2.The aforesaid submission is recorded and the tax appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

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 CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR NAFR Tax Case No.96 of 2017 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 (1), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant VersusShri Moha Sukumaran Prop- Gayatri Constructions, Bindu Bhawan, Near Carmel School, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Amit Chaudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge. Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 12/07/2017 1.Having regard to the tax limit involved in this appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant/Department submits that this matter is not pressed in the light of CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015. 2.The aforesaid submission is recorded and the tax appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- Sd/- Anu (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) CHIEF JUSTICE (Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE

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.