Itxa/2379/2009 Of The Commisioner Of Income Tax- 10 Mumbai v. Indian Oiltanking Ltd
High Court
25 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2379/2009 Of The Commisioner Of Income Tax- 10 Mumbai v. Indian Oiltanking Ltd
Date of order
25 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/2379/2009 Of The Commisioner Of Income Tax- 10 Mumbai v. Indian Oiltanking Ltd, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2379 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Indian Oiltanking Ltd.
..Respondent.
Ms. Padma Divakar for appellant.Mr.Percy J. Pardiwala, senior Advocate with A.K. Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010
P.C. :-
1.This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A relates to the correctness of an order dated 26th November, 2008 passed by the ITAT in deleting a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has deleted the penalty in view of the fact that the quantum addition has been deleted and the quantum appeal which has been filed before the Tribunal has been allowed. We are also informed by counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, and which is accepted by counsel appearing for the Revenue, that the appeal (Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2822 of 2008) against the decision of the Tribunal has been dismissed by this Court albeit on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise in this proceedings. The deletion of the penalty was in order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, 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.