The Revenue appellant, relying on CBDT Circular No.21/15 due to the tax effect being below the threshold, did not press the appeal, leading to its dismissal.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed by the appellant.
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.
ITXA104.07
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai 400 012 … Appellant v/s Neeta J. Arora … Respondent
Mr Suresh Kumar for Appellant. None for Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND
B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
VRD
2 ITXA104.07
Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
VRD
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai
Neeta J. Arora
M.S. SANKLECHA
B.P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
