Itxa/43/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Pushpam Plaza
High Court
05 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/43/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Pushpam Plaza
Date of order
05 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/43/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Pushpam Plaza, 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.
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.43 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II..Appellant-Versus-M/s. Pushpam Plaza Pvt.Ltd...Respondent
..Respondent
...........
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sernior Advocate, i/b. Vipul A. Bajpayee for the Appellant.
...........
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE :- 5[th] DECEMBER, 2014
P.C.:
This Appeal challenges the order dated 8[th] November, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.209/PN/2010. The assessment year is 2004-05. The Revenue's Appeal challenging the deletion of penalty by the First Appellate Authority has been dismissed by the Tribunal.
2]In dismissing it, the Tribunal holds that the Assessee has not concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof particularly relating to the interest on loan taken from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. In the circumstances, the deletion of penalty and for want of satisfaction of the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) read with
1/2
wadhwa
2
explanation 1 thereof of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be termed as perverse. It is not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.
3]There is no substantial question of law. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(A. A. SAYED, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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.