Itxa/878/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iipune v. Span Sm Developers
High Court
14 Mar 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/878/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iipune v. Span Sm Developers
Date of order
14 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/878/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iipune v. Span Sm Developers, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1668 OF 2010
The Commissioner of income Tax-II
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Span SM Developers
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
None for respondent.
P.C. :-
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.S. DALVI, JJ.DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2011
1.The CIT is aggrieved by the order of ITAT in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was deleted by the ITAT in view of the fact that quantum addition made under Section 80IB has been deleted in the light of the Special Bench decision in the case of Brahma Associates. The appeal filed by the revenue against the Special Bench decision being Income Tax Appeal No.1194 of 2010 (CIT V/s. Brahma Associates) has been dismissed by this Court on 22/02/2011. In this view of the matter, since the quantum addition stands deleted, deletion of penalty under Section 271(1(c) cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SMT. R.S. DALVI, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.
EaseValue