Itr/91/2000 Of Status Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Pune v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune
High Court
18 Nov 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itr/91/2000 Of Status Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Pune v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune
Date of order
18 Nov 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itr/91/2000 Of Status Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Pune v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Issue: (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c)?” 2 55.itr-91.00.doc 2.The Assessment Year relevant to the present Reference is A.Y.
Decision: 5.Reference is disposed of in above terms.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.91 OF 2000
Status Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
VersusCommissioner of Income Tax, Pune
..Applicant
..Respondent
...........
Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Ruturaj Gurjar for the Applicant.Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
P.C.:
DATE : 18[th] NOVEMBER, 2016
1.By this Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(the Act), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on the following two substantial questions of law:-
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of Explanation (4) to Section 271(1)(c) applies to a case where the income returned is a loss and income assessed is also a loss; and therefore, penalty can be levied in such case?
(ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c)?”
2 55.itr-91.00.doc
2.The Assessment Year relevant to the present Reference is A.Y. 1987-
88.
3.Regarding Question no.(i):-
(a)It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded in favour of the respondent-Revenue and against the applicant-assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. 304 ITR 308.
(b)In the above view, question no.(i) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-Revenue and against the applicant-assessee.
4.Regarding Question no.(ii):
(a)Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-assessee very fairly states that in view of the facts recorded in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the decision of the Apex Court in Gold Coin Health Food (supra) question no.(ii) is not being pressed.
(b)Accordingly, we have no occasion to give our opinion on the same.
5.Reference is disposed of in above terms.
(A. K. MENON, J.)
(M. S. SANKLECHA, 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.