Case LawHigh Court › M/S United Liner Agencies (Stevedores)Ka...

M/S United Liner Agencies (Stevedores)Kaiser-1 Hind Bldg v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Iii

High Court 16 Jan 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S United Liner Agencies (Stevedores)Kaiser-1 Hind Bldg v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Iii
Date of order
16 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In M/S United Liner Agencies (Stevedores)Kaiser-1 Hind Bldg v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Iii, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.

Issue: P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: 2.The statement is accepted and the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

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

Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2011. M/s United Liner Agencies (Stevedores)Kaiser-1 Hind Bldg. ... Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Central III ... Respondent. Mr Y. P. Trivedi, Senior Counsel with Pankaj R. Toprani with Usha Dalal for the appellant.Mr Vimal Gujpta with Padma Divakar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.DATE : 16 January, 2012. P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, is the question raised in this appeal. Admittedly, the quantum additions made in the assessment order and sustained by the ITAT has been set aside by this Court in Income-tax Appeal No. 5643 of 2010 on 17.11.2011 and the matter has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in the light of fresh affidavit filed by the Assessee before this Court. As per the said order, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to verify the contents of the affidavit and also the documents furnished by the Ladda Assessee. Since the quantum addition is set aside and remitted for fresh determination, we deem it proper to set aside the penalty order passed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. Counsel for the assessee states that the assessee shall not claim refund of the penalty paid by the assessee pursuant to the order impugned in the present appeal, till the Assessing Officer passes fresh order in the penalty proceedings, as contemplated herein. 2.The statement is accepted and the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (A.R.Joshi,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