Ita/91/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Gurgaon v. M/S Crew Bos Products Ltd New Delhi
High Court
11 May 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/91/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Gurgaon v. M/S Crew Bos Products Ltd New Delhi
Date of order
11 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/91/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Gurgaon v. M/S Crew Bos Products Ltd New Delhi, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|§AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 91 of 2015 (O&M)Date of Decision: 11.05.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon
....... Appellant
)"*%+%
M/s Crew Bos Products Ltd.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present:Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate|for the appellant.
RAJESH BINDAL,J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated8.8.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B'New Delhi, in ITA No. 1948/Del/2013, for the assessment year 2003-04,raising the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether ITAT has erred in law in deleting penaltyimposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that suchpenalty is not leviable in a case where there is meredenial of the claim of deduction claimed by the assessee?(ii) Whether ITAT has erred in law in not appreciatingthat the deduction claimed by the assessee in grossdisregard to unambiguous provisions of Section 80HHCof the Act amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particularsof income as contemplated u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act?
ITA No. 91 of 2015 (O&M)
~).
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that inview oft circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as thetax effect involved 1s less than=a20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty begranted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in casesomething survives therein.
Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case,
(RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE
11.05.2016T@eIN
(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)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.