The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nasik v. Radheshyam B. Agrawal
High Court
18 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nasik v. Radheshyam B. Agrawal
Date of order
18 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nasik v. Radheshyam B. Agrawal, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. [SANGITRAO S.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2015
(The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nasik Vs.Radheshyam B. Agrawal)
----
Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate for the appellant
----
CORAM :S.S. SHINDE ANDSANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 18[th] JULY, 2016
PER COURT:
appellant, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of thepresent appeal.
2.Mr. D.V. Soman, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that since a policy decision has
been taken by the Central Excise, Customs and ServiceTax Department that the appeal shall not be filed in theHigh Court in the cases having monetary stakes belowRs.15,00,000/- and since the said decision has been made
applicable retrospectively, the appellant may be
permitted to withdraw the present appeal by reservingtheir rights to agitate the legal issues and objectionsraised in the present appeal in appropriate cases.
3.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of
the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant ispermitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty asprayed for. The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGE
[S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE
npj/ita75-2015
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