The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Mumbai v. Shailesh R. Sachdev

53. itxa 462-05 & ors.doc Pradnya Bhogale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-XVI, City-Mum. ..Appellant vs.

M/s. Shreeji Exports ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.

505/2005 37/2006 48/2006 91/2006 149/2006 398/2006 667/2007 1008/2007 1339/2007 1520/2007 648/2012 17/2008 ........

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant in ITXA Nos.462/2005, 37/2006, 398/2006, 1008/2007, 1520/2007, 648/2012 and 17/2008.

Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant in ITXA Nos.505/2005, 48/2006 and 667/2007.

Mr. Sham V. Walve for the Appellant in ITXA Nos.91/2006 and 149/2006.

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Appellant in ITXA No.1339/2007.

Ms. Namrata Kasale for the Respondent in ITXA No.462/2005. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent in ITXA Nos.149/2006, 667/2007 and 17/2008.

Ms. Aarati Sathe for the Respondent in ITXA Nos.1520/2007 and 648/2012.

........

CORAM :

M.S. SANKLECHA AND NITIN JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE :

8 JANUARY 2020.

1/2

53. itxa 462-05 & ors.doc P.C. :

On the last date, we had adjourned these appeals at the instance of the learned counsel for the Revenue to enable them to take instructions to withdraw these appeals in terms of Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 8 August 2019 issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT).

2.

Today, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeals state that in spite of their best efforts, no instructions are forthcoming from the Revenue. All of them state that the tax effect involved in all these appeals is less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1.00 crore as provided in the CBDT Circular dated 8 August 2019.

3.

In the above view, all the appeals are disposed of in terms of the above Circular. Refund of Court fees as per Rules. 4.

However, it is made clear that in case the Officers of the Revenue inform the learned counsel for the Revenue that any of these appeals are not covered by the above CBDT Circular dated 8 August 2019, then the parties are at liberty to move this Court for recall of this order in respect of those appeals. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) 2/2