Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P. Ltd
High Court
06 May 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P. Ltd
Date of order
06 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Mohair Investment And Trading Co. P. Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: By the impugned order, the ITAT deleted the penalty levied on the Respondent Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI
5
+ ITA 292/2016
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel.
versus
MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Ms Kavita Jha, Advocate and Ms Mehak
Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R% 06.05.2016
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 27[th] November, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) in ITA No. 4677/DEL/2009 for Assessment Year („AY‟) 2001-02.
2. By the impugned order, the ITAT deleted the penalty levied on the Respondent Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. The reasons that weighed with the ITAT, inter alia, are that the issue concerning the disallowance of interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds utilized for acquiring shares under Section 14A of the Act was arising for the first time. AY 2001-02 was admittedly the first year of application of Section 14A of the Act. The method of computation of the disallowance
ITA 292/2016 Page 1 of 2
lacked clarity and, therefore, the action of the Assessee was bona fide.
4. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 06, 2016 pkv
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
ITA 292/2016 Page 2 of 2
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.