Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/283/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/283/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S. Timita Leasing And Finance Pvt. Ltd

High Court 05 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/283/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S. Timita Leasing And Finance Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
05 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/283/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S. Timita Leasing And Finance Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.283 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-10-Versus-M/s. Timita Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.Ms. Vasanti Patel for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 5[th] DECEMBER, 2014 P.C.: This Appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated 20[th] July, 2011 deleting the penalty. The penalty was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 18[th ]April, 2011 and the Tribunal upheld it by the impugned order dated 20[th ]July, 2012. 2]The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for upholding the conclusion of the Commissioner in para 7 denote that the Assessee has furnished all the particulars and which enables the Authorities to decide the claim. Merely because the Assessing Officer's order has been reversed and the wadhwa Commissioner's order was accepted by the Assessee, it does not mean that there is a concealment of income. The penalty was deleted by relying upon the legal principles laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on finding that all the particulars relevant for the purposes of the enquiry were already disclosed and there was no suppression. In such circumstances, the deletion of penalty cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The order of the Tribunal does not raise any substantial questions of law. 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