Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The C.I.T.Nashik. Vs Shrigonda S.S.K.Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

Home
Bombay HC
2016
The C.I.T.Nashik. Vs Shrigonda S.S.K.Ltd.The C.I.T.Nashik. v. Shrigonda S.S.K.Ltd.

Disposed

The C.I.T.Nashik. v. Shrigonda S.S.K.Ltd.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2016ITR/291/1999

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

COURT

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

A

879-98-ITR-C=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 879 OF 1998

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune .. Applicant v/s. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. .. Respondent

WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE NOS. 888/98, 894/98, 290/99, 291/99, 293/99, 294/99, 300/99, 309/99, 313/99, 314/99, 330/99, 334/99, 340/99, 344/99, 347/99, 349/99, 350/99, 361/99, 362/99, 371/99, 376/99, 379/99, 380/99, 382/99, 384/99, 385/99, 386/99, 387/99, 388/99, 389/99, 393/99, 395/99, 396/99, 398/99, 400/99, 401/99, 403/99, 405/99, 107/00, 108/00, 109/00, 110/00, 114/00, 115/00, 117/00, 119/00, 121/00, 122/00, 138/00, 141/00, 143/00 AND 144/00

Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the applicant Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent in ITR 879/98 Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent in ITR 362/99, 374/99, 380/99, and 387/99

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 5^th AUGUST, 2016.

P.C.

These References pertaining to the years 1998 and 2000, were on board on 22^nd July, 2016. At that time, we passed the following order:-

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune
respondent
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.

Coram

AI extract

M.S. Sanklecha

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 5 Aug 2016 · August
Registered: 12 Dec 1212
Case no.: ITR/291/1999

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from A. K. Menon M.s. Sanklecha

Caprihans India Ltd. Vs Jitendra Yadav and Anr.
4 Aug 2016
Ramesh Chandra Moona Vs the Office of the Appropriate Authority
4 Aug 2016
Searle India Ltd. Vs Seema K.Patra and Anr.
4 Aug 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax , Mumbai City Xiv, Mumbai. Vs M/S Parsi Dairy Farm, Mumbai
5 Aug 2016

Cite this judgement

The C.I.T.Nashik. v. Shrigonda S.S.K.Ltd., ITR/291/1999 (BOM), decided on 5 August 2016.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

M.S. Sanklecha and A.K. Menon

Parties & counsel

Disposed

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

“ These References on board, pertains to the years 2000 and prior thereto.

2 The Central Board of Direct Tax has issued a Clarification dated 8^th March, 2016 – wherein the earlier Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10^th December, 2015 was made applicable to pending References. Therefore, the Officers of the Revenue would not now press pending

1 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

879-98-ITR-C=.doc

References before this Court where the tax effect involved is less than Rs.20 lakhs.

3 Revenue is directed to examine each of the above References and ascertain the tax effect involved in each of them. Thereafter, file an affidavit, indicating the References where the tax effect involved is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Affidavit should be filed on or before next date i.e. 29^th July, 2016. These References which have tax effect of less than Rs.20 lakhs,would be covered by the above Circular.

4 It is made clear that in case the aforesaid exercise is not done, then we may be constrained to return all the above References un-answered.

5 All the above References to be on board on 29^th July, 2016 under the caption “for final disposal.”

Today none appears on behalf of the Revenue. It appears that Revenue is not interested in pursuing the aforesaid References. We had specifically stated in our order dated 22^nd July, 2016 that in case the exercise of finding out the tax effect in pending References is not done by the Revenue, we may be constrained to return References unanswered. In the above view, the aforesaid References are returned un-answered.

However, it is made clear that the question raised in these References for our opinion are left open for consideration in an appropriate Reference/ Proceedings.

4 All References returned un-answered as aforesaid. No order as to costs.

(A.K. MENON, J.)

2 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

A.K. Menon

CNR

HCBM020081061999

Topic

Bench

A. K. Menon M.s. Sanklecha

J.K. Chemicals Ltd. Vs the C.I.T., Bombay.

5 Aug 2016

D.L. Family Trust. Vs the C.I.T., City-Ii, Bombay.

5 Aug 2016