Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vad...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vadodara 2 v. National Dairy Development Board ==============================================================

High Court 12 Jun 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vadodara 2 v. National Dairy Development Board ==============================================================
Date of order
12 Jun 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vadodara 2 v. National Dairy Development Board ==============================================================, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Without giving further elaborate reasons, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] Prakash [B.N Karia, J.]

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 519 of 2018 ============================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VADODARA 2VersusNATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD============================================================== Appearance :Mr. VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the PETITIONER for the RESPONDENT ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA12[th] June 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue has filed this Appeal challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“Tribunal” for short] dated 26[th] May 2017 raising the following question for our consideration : “Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty under Section 271 [1](c) of the Income Tax Act with respect to claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 36 [1] (viii) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that this is not a case of plausible claim based on a bona fide interpretation of law and the assessee was clearly not eligible for deduction claimed and the penalty was supported by the decision in Zoom Communication Private Limited, 327 ITR 310 ?” As can be seen, the issue pertains to penalty under Section 271 [1](c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer having imposed penalty, CIT [A] confirmed the same. The Tribunal, however, deleted the penalty primarily on the ground that the explanation rendered by the assessee was reasonable. We may also notice that though quantum additions were confirmed till the stage of Tribunal, further appeal at the hands of the appellant is pending before the High Court. On the similar circumstances, in case of this very assessee, Revenue’s appeal being Tax Appeal No. 515 of 2018 concerning penalty arising out of the same judgment of the Tribunal came to be dismissed by this Court on 11[th] June 2018. Without giving further elaborate reasons, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] Prakash [B.N Karia, 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