The revenue appellant did not press the income tax appeal regarding Assessment Year 1994-95 due to circular directing that tax effect was below threshold limits, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.
The appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
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.
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XII, Mumbai … Appellant v/s Paramount Properties, Mumbai 400 021 … Respondent
Mr Arvind Pinto for Appellant. None for Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
VRD
2/2
press the present appeal.
Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
VRD
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XII
Paramount Properties, Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha
B.P. Colabawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
