In The Commissioner Ofincome-Tax City-Xiv, Mumbai v. Proper Court Fee Be Refunded In The, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 4.In view of withdrawal of the Appeal, the notice of motion does not survive and notice of motion stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No.779 of 2004.WITHNOTICE OF MOTION No. 1879 of 2004
The Commissioner ofIncome-tax City-XIV, Mumbai. ..Appellant.
Vs.
Chandrashekhar G.Thakkur.Mr Ashok Kotangale for Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr S Malik for the Respondent.
CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNANAND V.C. DAGA,JJ.DATED:19th June, 2007.
P.C.:-
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2.The learned counsel for the appellantseeks leave to withdraw the above
appeal.
appeal is allowed to be withdrawn anddismissed as such.
3.Proper court fee be refunded in the
above appeal as per rules.
4.In view of withdrawal of the Appeal, the
notice of motion does not survive and notice
of motion stands disposed of accordingly.
(V.C. DAGA,J.)
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
The
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