In Praful Silk Factory v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (1998) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- PRAFUL SILK FACTORY Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR JP SHAH for Petitioner MR MANISH R BHATT for Responden...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 140 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
--------------------------------------------------------------
PRAFUL SILK FACTORY
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR JP SHAH for Petitioner
MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date of decision: 20/07/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (per C.K.THAKKER J.)
�We have heard the parties.
�In our opinion, the following question of law
arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal.
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in
upholding the penalty u/s 273 (2) (aa) ?
�The application is, therefore, allowed. The
Tribunal is directed to furnish statement of case in
respect of the aforesaid questin under Section 256(2) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 expeditiously.
�Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Dt. 20.7.1998.����(C.K.THAKKER J.)
�����(M.C.PATEL 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.