The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-Xii v. Paramount Properties
Bombay HCITXA/74/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
What did the court decide?
Refund of Court fees granted. The appeal was dismissed solely because the appellant did not press the appeal.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
ITXA74.04
¶2
1
¶3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
¶4
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
¶5
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2004
¶6
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XII, Mumbai … Appellant v/s Paramount Properties, Mumbai 400 021 … Respondent
¶7
Mr Arvind Pinto for Appellant. None for Respondent.
¶8
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
¶9
DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2016
¶10
P.C.:-
¶11
- This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 1996-97. Mr Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the tax effect involved in the present appeal as indicated in para 10 of the Appeal Memo is Rs.1,93,584/-. He further states that in view of the Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No.21/15 dated 10th December 2015, the tax effect being less than the threshold limits provided therein for challenging an order of the Tribunal before this Court, he does not
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XII
- respondent
Paramount Properties
Coram
AI extract
M.S. Sanklecha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court