HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kinko Computer Industries
Income Tax Appeal No.100 of 2018 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Revenue appeal dismissed as withdrawn on counsel’s request under Circular 17/2019 dated 8 August 2019, recording tax effect below one crore rupees.
Division Bench · L. Narayana Swamy · Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1. Facts of the case
Revenue’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal in terms of Circular 17/2019 dated 8 August 2019, stating that the tax effect was less than one crore rupees. The source supplies no assessment year, exact tax-effect computation or underlying addition.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court considered the request on the recorded circular and tax-effect basis. The short order contains no examination of the underlying tax question or analysis of exceptions to the circular.
3. Judicial decision
Permission to withdraw was granted and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s identified appeal ended by withdrawal. No substantive tax issue was determined by the High Court in this order.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
The one-crore reference belongs to the recorded historical disposal
Counsel’s request expressly referred to Circular 17/2019 of 8 August 2019 and tax effect of less than one crore rupees. That is the policy basis recorded for this appeal on 11 November 2019. It should not be recast as a statement of the threshold currently applicable to another appeal, or as proof that every possible circular exception was separately examined and excluded by the Court.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Withdrawal supplies no decision on the underlying tax dispute
The operative relief is permission to withdraw and dismissal as withdrawn. The source does not identify an exemption, deduction, addition or substantial question that the Court analyzed. Whatever practical effect the withdrawal had on the lower appellate outcome, this order is not a reasoned endorsement of an unidentified tax proposition. A substantive account would require the assessment and appellate records that are absent from this source.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
A threshold statement is not an exact computation or tax saving
The recorded amount is a comparison with one crore, not a quantified tax effect or refund. Neither an assessment year nor the disputed tax, interest or penalty figures are stated. Readers should not treat the threshold as an amount deleted, a tax saving obtained or an adjudicated method for computing tax effect. The record supports the stated withdrawal ground and no invented arithmetic.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The full source and distinct docket define the publication
ITA 100/2018, the parties and 11 November 2019 identify this complete one-page order. Although the caption labels Revenue as petitioner, the heading identifies an income-tax appeal; no writ proceeding is inferred. The source contains inconsistent reporting-status markings, so no reported citation is asserted. It contains no express restoration liberty or later procedural outcome. Similar low-tax-effect wording in another appeal does not erase this separate docket identity.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Original judgment and subsequent status
Read the original judgment / orderFull original read; every original page visually inspected.
Subsequent case status: Appeal, review, recall and stay status has not been independently confirmed.
About this note
Prepared with AI assistance. Read with the original judgment.
General information. Application depends on the facts, statutory provisions, assessment year and jurisdiction.