Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2405/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/2405/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iv v. Triumph Securities Ltd

High Court 05 Dec 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2405/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iv v. Triumph Securities Ltd
Date of order
05 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/2405/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iv v. Triumph Securities Ltd, the High Court (2014) 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

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2405 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Central IV-Versus-Triumph Securities Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 5[th] DECEMBER, 2014 P.C.: The Tribunal's order dated 30[th] April, 2013 is challenged in this Appeal by the Revenue. The Assessee's Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the Assessee had not concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 1. All that the Assessee was faulted with was not making disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act on the interest which remained unpaid before the due date of filing of return. That was not a matter which would have enabled the Tribunal to impose wadhwa penalty because the tax consultant of the Assessee promptly came forward, owned up his mistake and made the disallowance. In such circumstances, none of the ingredients being satisfied that the penalty has been deleted and the reasons in that behalf as are found in para 7 and 8 of the impugned order do not suffer from perversity nor do they indicate that the order under challenge is vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, there is no substantial question of law raised in the Appeal. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 2/2
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan