The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Chesterfield Trading Private Limited
High Court
01 Mar 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Chesterfield Trading Private Limited
Date of order
01 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Chesterfield Trading Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
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
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.478 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 )..AppellantVs.Chesterfield Trading Private Limited )..Respondent----
)..Respondent
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Mr. P.R.Toprani for the respondent.
----
CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ
DATE : 1/3/2011.
PC
1Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is the question raised in this appeal. In the Assessment Year in question the assessee has taken the purchase price of the shares as on 31.3.1995 at Rs.45.61 per share. The Assessing Officer however, adopted the value at Rs.28.85 per share. In view of the wrong calculation made by the assessee, penalty was levied under Section
271(1)(c) of the Act.
2The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the purchase
price of the shares being not immediately available, the assessee valued shares on the basis of the report of Alcides Investments Co.
Pvt. Ltd., who had shown the purchase price of the shares in question as on 31.3.1995 at Rs.45.61 per share. Even the share value is adopted by the assessing officer by taking average value and the shares. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no concealment and hence no penalty could be imposed is a reasonable and possible view.
3We do not find any fault with the reasoning given by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,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.