Itxa v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle I(I) , Mumbai
High Court
20 Jun 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle I(I) , Mumbai
Date of order
20 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle I(I) , Mumbai, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that impugned interest u/s.
Decision: The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
rpa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2006
M/s.Depe Global Shipping
Agencies Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant
V/s.
Assistant Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Circle 1,(1), Mumbai .. Respondent
Mr.Subhash S.Shetty a/w. Mr.Atul K.Jasani for the
Appellant.
Mr.Vinod Gupta for the Respondent.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND
S.S.SHINDE, JJ.
P.C.:-
P.C.:-
. This is a case in which assessment were made
after the search and in this context following
questions have been framed :
I. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in coming to the conclusion that just
because the appellant had filed its block
2
return of income before the copies of
seized materials was furnished by the
assessing officer, it can not be said that
filing of block return was delayed because
of failure of assessing officer to furnish
copies of seized materials ?
II. Whether the Tribunal was right in its
conclusion that the interest under section
158BFA(1) can be levied, irrespective of
the fact that the delay in filing the block
return was caused due to the non-furnishing
of the copies of seized materials by the
assessing officer ?
III. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in coming to the conclusion that
impugned interest u/s. 158BFA is leviable
on the appellant despite the fact that the
appellant had paid the tax payable on block
return before filing the block return ?
2. Basically this is a finding of fact as to whether
the assessee had filed the block returns with a delay
3
and the Respondent including the Tribunal have come to
the conclusion that the block returns were filed with a
delay. Therefore, in our view, no question of law
arises.
3. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
(S.S.SHINDE, J.)
(S.S.SHINDE, 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.