Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1104/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai v. Harakchand Hukmichand Family Trust, Mumbai
Date of order
16 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
In Itxa/1104/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai v. Harakchand Hukmichand Family Trust, Mumbai, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ.DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1104 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-16
..Appellant.
V/s.
Harakchand Hukchichand Family TrustMr. A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr. S.P. Mehta for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ.DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.In the present case, the Tribunal relying on judgments of various High Courts held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained when the quantum addition is made on estimate basis. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on discretion which is reasonable. No question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, 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.