Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Karamvir Vashisht
High Court
14 Oct 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Karamvir Vashisht
Date of order
14 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Karamvir Vashisht, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
I.T.A. No.449 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.10.2010
Commissioner of Income Tax.
Vs.
Sh. Karamvir Vashisht.
-----Appellant.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. for the appellant.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 5.10.2007 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3294/Del/2006 for theassessment year 2001-02 proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:-
“a.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that the view ofassessee regarding non taxability of enhancedcompensation was bonafide particularly in view ofprovisions of section 45(5) of Income Tax Act?the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that the view ofassessee regarding non taxability of enhancedcompensation was bonafide particularly in view ofprovisions of section 45(5) of Income Tax Act?
b.That the Hon’ble ITAT erred in deciding that provingcontumacious intent is an essential ingredient in levyof penalty in contravention of the provisions of a Civilcontumacious intent is an essential ingredient in levyof penalty in contravention of the provisions of a Civil
Statute like Income Tax Act in spite of there being somany judgments that breach of a Civil obligationattracts levy of penalty whether the contravention wasmade by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not?”c.That the order of the Hon’ble ITAT is in contraventionof the many judicial pronouncements includingThirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax 210 CTR 287 (Mad)?”
Learned counsel for the revenue is unable to disputethat identical matter being I.T.A. No.16 of 2010 CITv. FatehSingh (HUF)has been decided on 15.7.2010 by this Courtagainst the revenue.
In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
October 14, 2010ashwani
( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
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.