Ita/44/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. N. Nayan Kumar And Co. Walkeshwar Road
High Court
12 Mar 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/44/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. N. Nayan Kumar And Co. Walkeshwar Road
Date of order
12 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/44/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. N. Nayan Kumar And Co. Walkeshwar Road, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.
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
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.44 OF 1999
THe Commissioner of Income-tax
Mumbai City - VII, Mumbai .. Petitioner.
V/s.
M/s.N. Nayankumar & Co. .. Respondent.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the petitioner.
Mr.B.V. Jhaveri for the respondent.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The above appeal was admitted on 23rd June, 1999
by this Court on the following question of law.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting
penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.
Act, 1961 ?
3. In view of our order dated 5th March, 2007
passed in Income Tax Application Nos. 53/99, 57/99 and
58/99 dismissing the applications, this application also
stands dismissed.
(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.
EaseValue