Itxa/1724/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. Shrimjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit
High Court
30 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1724/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. Shrimjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit
Date of order
30 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1724/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. Shrimjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. [SMT.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
* 1 *ITXAL.2358.2010
30.6.2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2358 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III Pune
....Appellant
V/S.Shramjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat SansthaMaryadit....Respondent
* * * *
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM :- J.P. DEVADHAR &
SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
P.C. :-
30 June 2011.
1.Heard.
2. In the present case, the ITAT has deleted the penalty levied under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by relying upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of CIT V/s.Bandhkam Khate Sevakachi Sahakari Patsantha Maryadit passed in ITA No. 156 of 2009 on 18[th] March, 2009 and in the case of CIT V/s. JayabhawaniGramin Bigar Sheti Sahkaripat
Sanstha Ltd passed in ITA No. 29 of 2009 on 20[th] March, 2009. Since no case is made out for taking a contrary view, we see no reason to entertain this
Appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
[SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]
[J.P. DEVADHAR, J]
* 2 *ITXAL.2358.201030.6.2011
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