In Itxa/5863/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 Mumbai v. Inditravel Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1908 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-tax-,
... Appellant.
Inditravel Private Ltd.
... Respondent.
Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Ajit Shah for the respondent.
Heard. Office objections are over-ruled. Appeal is taken up for hearing by consent of parties.
2.The question sought to be raised in this appeal relates to deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has deleted penalty on the ground that the claim made by the assessee was bona fide and merely because the claim was rejected, it cannot be said that the claim made by the assessee was false. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
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.
EaseValue