Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd

Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd

High Court 12 Dec 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd
Date of order
12 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

Issue: The revenue has preferred this appeal on the question of law as formulated in paragraph-A which reads as under :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the : 2 : Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3074 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1448 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 )..Appellant Mumbai Versus Narandas Rajaram & Co.Ltd., )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani with H.S.Khurana with Mr.B.U.Idnani for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 12.12.2007. PC 1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1448 OF 2007 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the question of law as formulated in paragraph-A which reads as under :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the : 2 : Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The learned Tribunal in its impugned order has held that there was no concealment as the respondent has disclosed the income earlier which has been assess as business income subsequently revenue assessing income of the house property. The Supreme T.Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Taxreported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) has set out the Court in T.Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) expression concealment of income. 3. In our opinion, the facts known to the revenue cannot be said to be concealment and consequently quesion of law considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in in T.Ashok Pai (supra) does not arise. Appeal accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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