Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Italindia Elastic Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0302-30]

Citation 2020-LL-0302-30
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-1
Respondent Name Italindia Elastic Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/03/2020
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags prescribed limit • disputed claim
Bot Summary: Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the appellant and Mr.Waglay, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 11th September, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench I, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.2420/Mum/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. On 3rd February, 2020, learned standing counsel sought for time to obtain instructions as to whether the related Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 14:17:29 Priya Soparkar 2 1 itxa 1095-14-o appeal is covered by the CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019. Today when the matter is called upon, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that he has not received instructions. Be that as it may, we find that the disputed claim in the appeal is Rs.27,32,141. In view of above, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. If it is found that the appeal falls within any of the exceptions in the aforesaid circular, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal.


Priya Soparkar 1 1 itxa 1095-14-o IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO.1095 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Appellant V/s. M/s Italindia Elastic Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Rajeev Waglay i/by M/s DSR Legal, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : MARCH 2, 2020 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for appellant and Mr.Waglay, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by Revenue against order dated 11th September, 2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench I, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.2420/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2007-08. 3. On 3rd February, 2020, learned standing counsel sought for time to obtain instructions as to whether related Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 14:17:29 Priya Soparkar 2 1 itxa 1095-14-o appeal is covered by CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019. Today when matter is called upon, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that he has not received instructions. 4. Be that as it may, we find that disputed claim in appeal is Rs.27,32,141.00 which is below prescribed limit as per Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8 th August, 2019. 5. In view of above, appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. However, if it is found that appeal falls within any of exceptions in aforesaid circular, it would be open to Revenue to seek revival of appeal. 6. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) . Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 14:17:29 Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Italindia Elastic Pvt. Ltd
Report Error