M/S.nrc Ltd v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai
High Court
13 Mar 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.nrc Ltd v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai
Date of order
13 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
1977-1978
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.nrc Ltd v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding that there was any concealment in return of income filed by the appellant attracting proviso to section 271(1)(c)? ii.
Decision: In view thereof, Appeal is allowed by answering the questions of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue, and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal stands set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.604 OF 2004
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.604 OF 2004
M/s.NRC Ltd .. Appellant
V/s
Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Respondents
Mr.S.N.Inamdar for the Appellant.
Mr.A.Kotangale for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 13th March, 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The
above appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 1977-1978.
The substantial questions of law sought to be raised in
this Appeal read as under:-
i. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of case
and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding that there was any concealment in return of income filed by the appellant attracting proviso to
section 271(1)(c)?
ii. Whether the tribujal was right in law in holding
that once an assessment is made whether a best
assessment or otherwise the figure assessed must be
held to be income of the assessee for levy of
concealment penalty?
iii. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the penalty when there was no tax payable & in holding that the amendment to Explanation 4 to
S.271(1)(c) was retrospective being clarificatory.
2. The learned Counsel for both the parties
categorically state that the aforesaid questions of law involved in this Appeal are squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virtual
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)
Soft Systems Ltd V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - (2007)
289 ITR 83 (SC), in favour of the Assessee and against
289 ITR 83 (SC)
289 ITR 83 (SC)
the Revenue. In view thereof, Appeal is allowed by
answering the questions of law in favour of the Assessee
and against the Revenue, and the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal stands set aside.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.