Case LawHigh Court › Tca/86/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Ta...

Tca/86/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.m.murali Mohan

High Court 26 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Tca/86/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.m.murali Mohan
Date of order
26 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Tca/86/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.m.murali Mohan, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.86 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- Shri.M.Murali Mohan,12, Vijayaraghava Road,T.Nagar, Chennai-17.... Respondent Prayer:Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'A', dated 05.08.2010, in I.T(SS).A.No.85/Mds/2002 for the assessment block period 1.4.88 to20.3.1999, and against the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai-34, made in IT-Appeal No.89/2001-2002dated 21.2.2002, for the Assessment block Period from 1.4.1988to 20.3.1999 and against the order of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax City Circle V (Inv)(2), Chennai, made inP.A/G.I.R.NO.AANPM2661c/2718.M, for the assessment block periodfrom 1.4.88 to 20.3.1999. For Appellant:Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant. 2. Though batta has been paid by the appellant for serviceof the respondent, he is yet to be served. 3. Considering the narrow scope of the appeal, we have heardthe learned counsel for the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In the light of the factual matrix, which has beennarrated by the Tribunal in the impugned order, we find noquestion of law, much less a substantial question of law,arising for consideration. Furthermore, we find that the taxeffect is lesser than the threshold limit mentioned in CircularNo.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018. Hence, the appeal standsdismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarabrTo 1.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'A'.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal-VI) Chennai-34.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, City Circle V(Inv)(2), Chennai.+1cc to Mr.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.81020 T.C.(A) No.86 of 2011 mr[co]srg 31/12/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
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