Georges Beverages India Pvt.ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai
High Court
13 Mar 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Georges Beverages India Pvt.ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai
Date of order
13 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
1996-1997
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Georges Beverages India Pvt.ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the penalty of Rs.41,40,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii.
Decision: Both the Appeals are therefore allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such.
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.537 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.537 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.537 OF 2005
Georges Beverages India Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant
V/s
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai.. Respondents
Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Appellant.
Mr.A.Kotangale for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 13th March, 2007.
DATE : 13th March, 2007.
DATE : 13th March, 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The
above appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 1996-1997.
The substantial questions of law sought to be raised in
this Appeal read as under:-
i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the penalty of Rs.41,40,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the pre-condition for imposition of the penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act namely that the Assessing Officer must be satisfied in the course of assessment proceedings is fulfilled in the case of the Appellant for levy of the penalty?
iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case the finding of the Tribunal that the
provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were attracted in the case of Appellant is perverse and/or contrary to material on record inasmuch as the explanation given by the Appellant were not found to
be false or malafide?
iv. Assuming without admitting that provisions of
section 271(1)(c) of the Act were attracted in the case of the Appellant than whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of the decision of the Tribunal confirming the penalty on the entire alleged Bottlers’ support Expenses of Rs.80 lakhs is perverse and/or contrary to material on record inasmuch as
even before the commencement of assessment
proceedings the Appellant (i) in the revised accounts
which were audited had claimed Rs.23,12,527/- as
Distribution related cost and, (ii) written back a
sum of Rs.19,75,876/- in the accounts relating
subsequent assessment year?
v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case of Tribunal was justified in law on holding
that penalty under the provisions of Section
271(1)(c) of the Act, as it applied to the year under
consideration, could be levied even in a case where
the returned income is a loss and the final income
which is assessed is also a loss, that is, in a case
where as a result of additions and disallowances the
returned loss is reduced and no positive income is
assessed?
2. The learned Counsel for both the parties
categorically state that the aforesaid questions of law
involved in this Appeal are squarely covered by a
Virtual
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virtual
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)289 ITR 83 (SC), in favour of the Assessee and against
289 ITR 83 (SC)
the Revenue. In view thereof, Appeal is allowed by
answering the questions of law in favour of the Assessee
and against the Revenue, and the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal stands set aside.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.389 OF 2007
categorically state that the aforesaid questions of law
involved in this Appeal are squarely covered by a
Virtual
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virtual
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)289 ITR 83 (SC), in favour of the Assessee and against
289 ITR 83 (SC)
the Revenue. In view thereof, Appeal is allowed by
answering the questions of law in favour of the Assessee
and against the Revenue, and the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal stands set aside.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.389 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.389 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Appellant V/s M/s.Vallabh Poly Plast International Ltd.. Respondent
Mr.A.Kotangale for the Appellant.
Mr.Ajay Singh for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
DATE : 13th March, 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal. Appeal is therefore allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. Permissible Court fees be refunded to the Appellant as per the rules.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1405 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1405 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1405 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Appellant
V/s
M/s.Triplast (Bombay) P.Ltd. .. Respondent
WITH
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1406 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Appellant
V/s
M/s.Triplast (Bombay) P.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.A.Kotangale for the Appellant.
Mr.S.G.Dalal & Mr.Harshad H.Gada for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
DATE : 13th March, 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The
learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks leave to
withdraw these Appeals. Both the Appeals are therefore
allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such.
Permissible Court fees be refunded to the Appellants as
per the Rules.
2. In view of disposal of the aforesaid two Appeals, nothing further survives in the Notice of Motion No.3331/2005 and Notice of Motion No.3359/2005 in the
respective Appeals. Hence, both the Notices of Motion
also stand disposed of.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.