The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Rajesh Jaiswal,L/H Late Matadin Jaiswal,Nagpur
High Court
13 Apr 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Rajesh Jaiswal,L/H Late Matadin Jaiswal,Nagpur
Date of order
13 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Rajesh Jaiswal,L/H Late Matadin Jaiswal,Nagpur, the High Court (2007) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 1996
The Commissioner of Income-tax,Vidarbha, Nagpur.::APPLICANT
-: Versus :-
Rajesh Jaiswal,L/H Late Matadin Jaiswal,Nagpur.::RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. C. :
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated 17/5/1995 in Reference Application No. 73/Nag/95 declining to refer the question of law raised by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act.
2. From the order of the Tribunal it is seen that the Tribunal has declined to refer the question in view of small tax effect. In this case the amount involved is less than Rs. 30,000/-. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Camco Color Co. reported in 245 ITR 565 has held that where the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed by the Board, the
2
application should not be entertained.
3. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the application. Accordingly the application is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
WWL
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.