Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Re...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Regency Express Builders Pthrough

High Court 10 Dec 2019 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

10 Dec 2019

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Regency Express Builders Pthrough, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Decision: 1,57,517/- as mentioned in the order of CIT (A) dated25.08.2002, as also the letter dated 20.11.2019 issued by ACIT, Judicial-2,New Delhi, the tax effect in the present appeal being below the permissibletax effect limit, the present appeal is disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~34 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 107/2006 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Deepak Anand, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr. Vipul Agarwal,Advocate. versus M/S REGENCY EXPRESS BUILDERS PThrough: ..... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI O R D E R10.12.2019 % In the light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (JudicialSection), Government of India, which fixes the monetary limit in respect oftax effect, inter alia, before the High Court in which the Department couldpursue the matter as Rs. 1,00,00,000/-;the income tax demands of Rs.19,43,175/- and Rs. 1,57,517/- as mentioned in the order of CIT (A) dated25.08.2002, as also the letter dated 20.11.2019 issued by ACIT, Judicial-2,New Delhi, the tax effect in the present appeal being below the permissibletax effect limit, the present appeal is disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI, J DECEMBER 10, 2019/nk REKHA PALLI, J

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.