Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v....

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Porrits And Spencer (A) Ltd

High Court 22 Apr 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Porrits And Spencer (A) Ltd
Date of order
22 Apr 2010
Assessment year(s)
1991-92
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Porrits And Spencer (A) Ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: However,the question whether the penalty is imposable under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 has been rendered academic because the basicquestion whether the transaction for purchase and sale of 25 lakhs unit of'US 64' were speculative loss or bonafide transaction entered into as a parto...

Decision: In view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 937 of 2008Date of decision 22 .4.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad... Appellant Versus M/s Porrits and Spencer (A) Ltd.... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga ,Advocate for the appellant Mr. Santosh Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate for the respondent 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The Revenue has challenged order dated 20.3.2008 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi in ITA No.1269/DEL 2007 in respect of the assessment year 1991-92. The Tribunal inits order has upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A),Faridabad dated 5.1.2007 deleting the penalty on various grounds. However,the question whether the penalty is imposable under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 has been rendered academic because the basicquestion whether the transaction for purchase and sale of 25 lakhs unit of'US 64' were speculative loss or bonafide transaction entered into as a partof tax planning has been answered by this Court in the appeal filed by theassessee being ITA No.10 of 2004 decided on 31.3.2010. Once the aforesaidfactual position is prevailing the question of imposition of penalty wouldnot arise at the first place. In view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge 22.4.2010 (Jitendra Chauhan)Judge okg
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan