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.B.C-Vi. Vs M/S. Zenith Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

Home
Bombay HC
2016
The C.I.T.B.C-Vi. Vs M/S. Zenith Ltd.The C.I.T.B.C-Vi. v. M/S. Zenith Ltd.

Disposed

The C.I.T.B.C-Vi. v. M/S. Zenith Ltd.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2016ITR/95/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 1985-86. The Applicant's counsel stated that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, citing a Central Board circular and a prior High Court decision, and advised that there was no instrument to press the reference. The Court noted the Applicant was not interested in pursuing it.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revenue is estopped from challenging the order under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act given a circular directing not to challenge orders where tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Revenue's counsel stated that due to Circular No. 21/15 and reliance on CIT v. Sunny Sounds Pvt. Ltd., the Reference was not worthy to be pressed as the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Applicant was found not interested in pursuing the Reference, which is therefore disposed of without an order as to costs. The legal question on the Circular's applicability to pending references is left open.

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.

A

ITR95.99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.95 OF 1999

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay … Applicant v/s M/s Zenith Ltd., Bombay … Respondent

Mr Arvind Pinto i/b Mr Suresh Kumar for Applicant. Mr S.J. Mehta with Ms Aarti Vissanji for Respondent.

CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2016

P.C.:-

This Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 relates to AY 1985-86.

Mr Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this Reference is less than Rs.20 lakhs. He further states that in view of the Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No.21/15 dated 10^th December 2015, the Revenue has been directed not to challenge the orders of the Tribunal before this Court where the tax effect is less than the threshold limits of Rs.20 lakhs.

1/2

VRD

ITR95.99

The above Circular further directs that pending Appeals having a tax effect of less than Rs.20 lakhs would either be not pressed or withdrawn.

Mr Pinto further invites our attention to the decision of this Court in CIT, Bombay City I v/s M/s Sunny Sounds Pvt.Ltd. in ITR No.213 of 1997, rendered on 8^th January 2016 wherein this Court has taken a view that the aforesaid Circular No.21/2015 dated 10^th December 2015 would also apply to pending References.

In the above view, Mr Pinto states that he has instructions not to press the present Reference. It thus appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing the Reference. The same is returned unanswered. However, the question as framed for our opinion is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Reference disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

2/2

VRD

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Revenue is estopped from challenging the order under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act given a circular directing not to challenge orders where tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs.
2.
Whether the Circular No. 21/15 applies to pending references u/s 256(1) and if Revenue chooses not to press the matter.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

CIT, Bombay City I v/s M/s Sunny Sounds Pvt.Ltd. in ITR No.213 of 1997Referred¶14

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Income Tax Act256(1)

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City VI
respondent
M/s Zenith Ltd.

Coram

AI extract

M.S. Sanklecha
B.P. Colabawalla

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 16 Feb 2016 · February
Registered: 12 Dec 1212
Case no.: ITR/95/1999
CNR: HCBM020084701998
Topic: Income Tax
Bench: B.p. Colabawalla M.s. Sanklecha
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B.p. Colabawalla M.s. Sanklecha

Ratna F. Jaiswal Vs the Municipal Commissioner of Navi Mumbai and Ors.
12 Feb 2016
The C.I.T.Nashik. Vs the Nashik Dist.Labour Contractor Federation Ltd.
11 Feb 2016
The C.I.T.B.C-Viii. Vs Smt. Shashikala N. Jhunjhunwala
11 Feb 2016
The C.I.T.B.C.-Viii. Vs Mr. Damnji M. Savla.
16 Feb 2016
The C.I.T.B.C-I. Vs M/S.Premier Synthetic Processars Ltd.
16 Feb 2016
The C.I.T.B.C-v. Vs M/S. Rai Metal Works Pvt.
16 Feb 2016

Cite this judgement

The C.I.T.B.C-Vi. v. M/S. Zenith Ltd., ITR/95/1999 (BOM), decided on 16 February 2016.

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

Cases cited1

CIT, Bombay City I v/s M/s Sunny Sounds Pvt.Ltd. in ITR No.213 of 1997Referred¶14

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Income Tax Act256(1)

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

M.S. Sanklecha and B.P. Colabawalla

Parties & counsel