In Itxa/743/2009 Of The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S. May And Baker Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal reads as under:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting penalty levied u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act ? " 2.We are taken through the order of the Tribunal that there is no finding th...
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.743 OF 2009
The Director of Income tax
M/s. May & Baker Ltd.
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Parag Vyas for appellant.
Mr.J.D. Mistry i/b. Crawfard Bayley & Co. for respondent.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent. The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal reads as under:-
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting penalty levied u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act ? "
2.We are taken through the order of the Tribunal
that there is no finding that concealment was done by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. No substantial question
of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
3.
However, learned counsel for the assessee
undertakes to file the Vakalatnama. The undertaken is taken on record.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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.