The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle Iv, Mumbai 400 020 v. M/S N.h. Securities Ltd., Mumbai 400 005
High Court
29 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle Iv, Mumbai 400 020 v. M/S N.h. Securities Ltd., Mumbai 400 005
Date of order
29 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle Iv, Mumbai 400 020 v. M/S N.h. Securities Ltd., Mumbai 400 005, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.68 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle IV, Mumbai 400 020 v/sM/s N.H. Securities Ltd., Mumbai 400 005
… Appellant
… Respondent
Mr Arvind Pinto for Appellant. Mr Atul Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ. DATE : 29[th] FEBRUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. Mr Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the tax effect in the present Appeal as indicated in para 11 of the Appeal Memos is Rs.10.44 lakhs. He further states that in view of the Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No.21/15 dated 10[th ]December 2015, the tax effect being less than the threshold limit of Rs.20 lakhs provided therein for challenging an order of the Tribunal before this Court, he does not press the present
Appeal.
2.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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.
EaseValue