The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-21, Mumbai v. Milan M. Patel
High Court
15 Jan 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-21, Mumbai v. Milan M. Patel
Date of order
15 Jan 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-21, Mumbai v. Milan M. Patel, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.In the above view, the appeal is disposed of in terms ofthe above Circular.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Pradnya Bhogale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax, City-21, Mumbai
..Appellant
vs.
Milan M. Patel
..Respondent
…........
Sumandevi Yadav I/b. Mr. Abhay Ahuja for Appellant.Namrata Kasale I/b. Mr. Sameer Dalal for Respondent.….....…
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : 15 JANUARY 2020
P.C.:-
On the last date, we had adjourned the appeal at theinstance of the learned counsel for the Revenue to takeinstructions to withdraw the appeal in terms of Circular No. 17 of2019 dated 8 August 2019 issued by the Central Board for DirectTaxes (CBDT).
2.Today, the learned Counsel appearing in support ofthe appeal state that in spite of best efforts, no instructions areforthcoming from the Revenue. Counsel states that the tax effectinvolved in the appeal is less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1.00crore as provided in the CBDT Circular dated 8 August 2019.
3.In the above view, the appeal is disposed of in terms ofthe above Circular. Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
4.However, it is made clear that in case the Officer of theRevenue inform the learned counsel for the Revenue that any ofthe appeal is not covered by the above CBDT Circular dated8 August 2019, then the parties are at liberty to move this Courtfor recall of this order in respect of this appeal.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, 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.