In Income Tax Appeal v. M/S.maheshchand Gupta (Huf, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was confirmed by I.T.A.T.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.25 OF 2008
The Commissioenr of Income-tax 14.Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Maheshchand Gupta (HUF) ...Respondent
Mr. S.M. Shah for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.DATED: 24TH JUNE 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.
DATED: 24TH JUNE 2008
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was
confirmed by I.T.A.T. The I.T.A.T. in para.3 of
his order has observed that the C.I.T. (A) had
cancelled the penalty on the ground that the
assessee had disclosed the facts material to the
computation of its total income and that its claim
under Section 80HHC was based on interpretation of
law. The Tribunal further noticed as under:-
"The finding of fact recorded by the learned
C.I.T. (A) has not been controverted."
2. Considering that the said finding of fact is
not controverted the question of law as framed would
not arise in this Appeal. Consequently Appeal
dismissed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.