The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune v. Vanaz Engineers Pvt.ltd., Pune
High Court
11 Feb 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune v. Vanaz Engineers Pvt.ltd., Pune
Date of order
11 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune v. Vanaz Engineers Pvt.ltd., Pune, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.493 OF 1998
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune
v/s
Vanaz Engineers Pvt.Ltd., Pune
… Applicant
… Respondent
Mr Suresh Kumar for Applicant. None for Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND
B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
1.
This Reference under section 256(1) of the Income
Tax Act 1961 relates to AYs 1977-78 and 1979-80.
2.Mr Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the tax effect involved in both the Assessment Years is less than Rs.10 lakhs. He further states that in view of the Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No.21/15 dated 10[th ]December 2015, the Revenue has been directed not to challenge the orders of the Tribunal before this Court where the tax effect
is less than the threshold limits of Rs.20 lakhs.
3.The above Circular further directs that pending Appeals having a tax effect of less than Rs.20 lakhs would either be not pressed or withdrawn.
4.Mr Suresh Kumar further invites our attention to the decision of this Court in CIT, Bombay City I v/s M/s Sunny Sounds Pvt.Ltd. in ITR No.213 of 1997, rendered on 8[th] January 2016 wherein this Court has taken a view that the aforesaid Circular No.21/2015 dated 10[th] December 2015 would also apply to pending References.
5.In the above view, Mr Suresh Kumar states that he has instructions not to press the present Reference. It thus appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing the Reference. The same is returned unanswered. However, the question as framed for our opinion is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
6.Reference disposed of. No order as to costs.
(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.