Pune v. M/S. Jmd Developers
High Court
23 Nov 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pune v. M/S. Jmd Developers
Date of order
23 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pune v. M/S. Jmd Developers, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Issue: 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this Appeal.
Decision: 5.Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.42 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax -II,
Pune
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s. JMD Developers...Respondent.
....
Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the Appellant.
....
A.R. JOSHI, JJ. rd NOVEMBER, 2011.
DATED : 23
P.C.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this Appeal.
2.The Tribunal in para-5 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the explanation given by the assessee that the borrowings were made on the last day of the accounting year from the sister concerns under the same management on account of immediate business requirement is a reasonable cause and, therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Act was not justified.
3.In our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is one of the possible views that could be taken. Hence, we do not see any reason to entertain the present Appeal.
4.We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the finding recorded by the ITAT that Section 269SS or 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable where the transactions are between the assessee and its sister concerns.
5.Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(A. R. JOSHI, J.)
(J. P. DEVADHAR,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.