The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.manoj Housing Finance Co. Limited
High Court
28 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.manoj Housing Finance Co. Limited
Date of order
28 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.manoj Housing Finance Co. Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4206 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Manoj Housing Finance Co. Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.P. Jain i/by Mr.Prakash Panjabi for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] February, 2011.
1.Although four questions of law have been raised by the Revenue
in this appeal, learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that first three questions do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The only question, therefore, raised in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
The learned counsel for the Revenue states that the quantum
additions made by the assessing officer have been deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said decision of the Tribunal has been dismissed by this Court today. As a result whereof, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(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.
EaseValue