Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-...

Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds) v. M/S Serko Plast

High Court 27 Nov 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds) v. M/S Serko Plast
Date of order
27 Nov 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds) v. M/S Serko Plast, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Appeal raises the following question of law:- " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) who has passed the order deleting and reducing the penalty imposed u/s.272(1) (g) and restricting it to the extent of tax deducted at...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD.) NO.700 OF 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD.) NO.700 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income tax(TDS) ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Seika Plast ..Respondent. Mr.A.D. Kango for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- Appeal is taken up on board for admission. Heard Mr.Kango for the appellant. None for the respondent. Appeal raises the following question of law:- " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) who has passed the order deleting and reducing the penalty imposed u/s.272(1) (g) and restricting it to the extent of tax deducted at source ? respondent-assessee did not issue the TDS certificate in time. Therefore, penalty was imposed. Section 272 A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act provides that where a person concerned fails to furnish the certificate, he shall have to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs.100/- per day during which the failure continues. The proviso, however, limits the amount to the tax deducted at source or collected. This is what the Tribunal has done and restricted the penalty to Rs.13,393/-. The Tribunal has followed the law correctly. No reason to interfere. 3. Appeal is dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
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