Itxa/403/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. Landmark Education India
High Court
18 Oct 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/403/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. Landmark Education India
Date of order
18 Oct 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/403/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. Landmark Education India, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals are, accordingly, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.403 OF 2002
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.404 OF 2002
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.405 OF 2002
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
TDS, Mumbai .. Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Landmark Education India .. Respondent.
Mr.Parag Vyas for the appellant.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 18TH OCTOBER, 2005.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. He
fairly pointed out that considering the quantum of
penalty in these appeals, these appeals can be disposed
of applying the law laid down by this Court in the case
of CIT V/s. Camco Colour Co. [(2002) 254 ITR 565(Bom)] followed by this Court in subsequent judgment in the case of CIT V/s. Pithwa Engg. Works [(2005) 276ITR 519 (Bom)].
ITR 519 (Bom)]
2. Even otherwise, on merits there is no
substantial question of law involved in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan
Hindustan
2
Steel Ltd. V/s. State of Orissa (82 ITR 26). Thus,
Steel Ltd. V/s. State of Orissa (82 ITR 26)
Steel Ltd. V/s. State of Orissa (82 ITR 26)
there is no merit in these appeals.
3. Apart from the above, the Tribunal has also
recorded finding of fact that there was a reasonable
cause for not paying the penalty within time.
4. In this view of the mater, hardly there would be
any substantial question of law warranting interference.
The appeals are, accordingly, stands dismissed with no
order as to costs.
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.