Itxa/1941/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii ,Nashik v. M/S. Contractor And Comapny
High Court
05 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1941/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii ,Nashik v. M/S. Contractor And Comapny
Date of order
05 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1941/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii ,Nashik v. M/S. Contractor And Comapny, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: SAYED, JJ.DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1941 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik V/s.M/s. Contractor & Company, Manmad
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.Counsel for the revenue fairly states that quantum additions made by the assessing officer have been deleted by the ITAT and appeal filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT deleting the quantum additions being Income Tax Appeal No.1940 of 2009 has been dismissed by this Court on 4/1/2010. In these circumstances, in view of the fact that quantum additions are already deleted, the question of sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not arise. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, 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