In Itxa/2277/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 Mumbai v. M/S. Austoriders Finance P Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Appeal is, therefor, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 887 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-tax-,... Appellant.V/s.M/s.Autoriders Finance P.Ltd.... Respondent.
Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
P.C. :
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 20[th] July 2009.
Heard. Office objections are over-ruled. Appeal is taken up for hearing at the request of the appellant.
2.Both parties agree that the issue sought to be raised in this appeal relates to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has dealt with the said issue in the following words:
�..... It is only the rejection of the method of accounting adopted by the assessee which resulted in the addition and the Assessing Officer disallowed some legal and professional charges and brought to tax notional interest on interest paid advances. We are in agreement with the findings of the CIT(A) that there is no case for levy of penalty where there is a change of opinion and two different views are possible on the same issue assessee cannot be penalised for canvassing a view different from the departmental view. In view of this we upheld the order of the CIT(A)�
3.Having seen the aforesaid finding, we see no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Appeal is, therefor, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
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.