Dismissed

The Commissioner of of Income-Tax VIII v. M/S Jecobs H and G Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2020ITXA/1041/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, in Income Tax Appeal No.1041 of 2007 for the assessment year 1995-96, dismissed an appeal against the tribunal's order. The court observed that the tax effect was below the Rs.1 crore limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if exceptions applied.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn; court fees refunds may be granted. Liberty granted to revive the appeal if exceptions apply.

The Commissioner of of Income-Tax VIII Vs M/S Jecobs H and G… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2020)

2 itxa 1041-07-o

Priya Soparkar

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

¶5

INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO.1041 OF 2007

¶6

The Commissioner of Income-Tax VIII … Appellant V/s. M/s Jecobs H and G Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent ---

¶7

Mr.Suresh Kumar with Ms.Sumandevi Yadav, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Subhash S. Shetty, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

¶9

DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2020

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the appellant; and Mr.Subhash S. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

¶12

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order dated 22^nd April, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "D", Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.162/Mum/2000 for the assessment year 1995-96.

¶13

We notice that in the court proceedings held on 14^th January, 2020 it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the tax effect is less than the prescribed limit of Rs.1 crore as provided in CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019

¶14

Priya Soparkar 2 2 itxa 1041-07-o

¶15

dated 8th August, 2019. Learned standing counsel had sought for time to examine the position. Further time was granted subsequently on 28^th January, 2020.

¶16

Today when the matter is called upon, Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that he has not received any instructions.

¶17

Be that as it may, evidently the tax effect is below the prescribed limit of Rs.1 crore as per the CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019.

¶18

The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn as per the said Circular. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if it is found that the appeal comes within any of the exceptions carved out in the CBDT circular.

¶19

Court fees paid may be refunded as per Rules.

¶20

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

The Commissioner of of Income-Tax VIII v. M/S Jecobs H and G Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of of Income-Tax VIII v. M/S Jecobs H and G Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-20, Mumbai Vs Sunil M. Thakkar

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ltu Vs Aditya Birla Minacs Bpo Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-16 Vs Dish Tv India Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-8 Vs Pashupati Granites Pvt. Ltd.

Desiree M.Thakur and Anr. Vs the Appropreiate Authority and Anr.

Vinay D.Valia Vs a.S.Thakur and Ors.