In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nitin R.mehta, 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.
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.2467 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Nitin R.Mehta
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.A.S.Shivsharan for appellant.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 10[th] NOVEMBER,2009
DATE :
P.C.
Heard.
Perused appeal.
The issue sought to be raised in the appeal revolves around deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has appreciated the facts and circumstances and recorded finding of fact that if the explanation furnished by the assessee found not false or incorrent, then the penalty could not have been levied. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No perversity could be demonstrated by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. No case is made out for entertaining the appeal. 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.