Itxa/523/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Ii, Kolhapur v. Shri. Vasantrao Chougule Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd
High Court
12 Jan 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/523/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Ii, Kolhapur v. Shri. Vasantrao Chougule Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd
Date of order
12 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/523/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Ii, Kolhapur v. Shri. Vasantrao Chougule Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.523 OF 2006The Commissioner of Income Tax City II. ..Appellant.Vs.Shri. Vasantrao Chougule NagariSahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd... Respondent.Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.Mr.S.N.Inamdar with Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 12TH JANUARY, 2009.PC :1. We have perused the order of the learned tribunalfrom which the present appeal has been filed. Thelearned Tribunal after considering the contentionsargued on behalf of the appellant was pleased to holdthat there was reasonable cause for failure to complywith the provisions of Section-269SS and 269T within themeaning of Section 273B and accordingly confirmed the
order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalties levied u/s.
271D and 271E of the Act.
2. Having heard the learned counsel, we are clearly ofthe opinion that the conclusion arrived at by thelearned tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable,considering the contentions advanced before it and thematerial on record. Once that being the case, the
question of law as framed would not arise and
consequently appeal dismissed.
( R.S. MOHITE, 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.