D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rawla
High Court
04 May 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rawla
Date of order
04 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rawla, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5.Accordingly, the appeal is hereby 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 JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
ORDER
::::
D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.152/14 (D) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS.
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, RAWLA
::::
Date of Order : 4[th] May, 2016.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHAHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr.K.K.Bissa with Mr. H.G.Chanda, for the appellant.
BY THE COURT:-
1.The requirement of production of certified copy of theimpugned order is dispensed with.
2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3.This appeal is directed against the common order dated24.2.14 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), JodhpurBench, Jodhpur, whereby the order passed by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], deleting the penalty imposedby the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1) (c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ( for short “the Act”), has been affirmed.
4.The appeals involving identical question preferred by theRevenue against the order passed by the ITAT, deleting the
additions made by the Assessing Officer, stand dismissed by thisCourt vide order dated 26.4.16 passed in D.B.Income Tax AppealNo.47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi UpajMandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) & other connected appeals, andtherefore, the order impugned passed by the ITAT deleting thepenalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act relating to theaddition made by the Assessing Officer does not warrant anyinterference by this Court.
5.Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA), J.
(SANGEET LODHA),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.