Itxa/2043/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 Mumbai v. M/S. Ramnath International Constructions Pvt Ltd
High Court
03 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2043/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 Mumbai v. M/S. Ramnath International Constructions Pvt Ltd
Date of order
03 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/2043/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 Mumbai v. M/S. Ramnath International Constructions Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.In the result, appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2043 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-tax.... Appellant.V/s.M/s.Ramnath International Constructions Pvt.Ltd.... Respondent.
... Respondent.
Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
N.Thakkar i/b. Vigil Juris for the respondent.
P.C. :
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.rdDATED : 3 November 2009.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused appeal as well as impugned order.
2.So far as first question is concerned, it revolves around the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Both the authorities below have concurrently held that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. The assessee had disclosed method of accounting as well as all material facts and particulars. In the circumstances, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty. This question, therefore, cannot be said to be a substantial question of law.
3.So far as second question is concerned, the same being consequential question it needs no consideration since the appeal is being dismissed on first question. 4.In the result, appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA 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.