Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.delta Trans Conductors Pvt. Ltd
High Court
01 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.delta Trans Conductors Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
01 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.delta Trans Conductors Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.955 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.
..Appellant
M/s.Delta Trans Conductors Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar a/w. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.K.B.Bhujale for respondent.
P.C.
Heard.
Perused appeal.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 1ST JULY, 2009
DATE :
2.The question sought to be raised in the appeal is considered by the Tribunal on merits and recorded the findings in favour of the assessee in the following words :
Coming to the merits, even otherwise we find the issue is to go in assessee’s favour. Assessee furnished all the details and has not concealed any material facts. By the claim the assessee is not getting any direct benefit. In future assessee may get benefit of carry forward. Such a claim cannot be treated as a conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to bring within the scope of Section 271(1)(c). This is not a fit case to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
3.In the above view of the matter, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)
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.