Case LawHigh Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. M/S...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. M/S. Claridges Investment & Finance P Ltd

High Court 19 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. M/S. Claridges Investment & Finance P Ltd
Date of order
19 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. M/S. Claridges Investment & Finance P Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.Following question is presented for our consideration:- " Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law,the Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty of Rs.

Decision: In present case, when theTribunal has come to the conclusion that the claim of theassessee was not malafide, no question of penalty arises.Hence, the Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4..Appellant Versus M/s. Claridges Investment & Finance P Ltd ..Respondent ................... Mr. Ashok N. Kotangle a/w Prabhakar Ranshur, Ms. Vaidehi Godsefor the Appellant Mr. Ashok N. Kotangle a/w Prabhakar Ranshur, Ms. Vaidehi Godsefor the Appellant Mr. Pankaj Toprani i/by Sameer Dalal for the RespondentMr. Pankaj Toprani i/by Sameer Dalal for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : MARCH 19, 2019. P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). 2.Following question is presented for our consideration:- " Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law,the Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty of Rs. 95,00,000/- leviedu/S. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 only on the technicalground that the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty for furnishingof inaccurate particulars of income but levied it on account ofconcealment of income? 3.The respondent assessee is a Private Limited Company. In the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08, there was disallowance of Rs. 1.83 crores on account of valuationof loss of shares converted from investment to stock-in-trade. This was confirmed upto the level of the Tribunal. TheAssessing OfÏcer had instituted penalty proceedings, heeventually imposed a penalty. The Tribunal, by the impugnedjudgment, deleted the penalty holding that the claim madehaving been erroneous, same was not made malafide. Weare broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal.Every case of disallowance or addition would not necessarilyresulted into penalty proceedings. In present case, when theTribunal has come to the conclusion that the claim of theassessee was not malafide, no question of penalty arises.Hence, the Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, 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