Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S.sahney Kirkwood Pvt. Ltd

High Court 29 Jan 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S.sahney Kirkwood Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S.sahney Kirkwood Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s.271 (1)(c) on the ground that agreement between assessee and MIWI is not sham and bogus?

Decision: 3) The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.94 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10. v. M/s.Sahney Kirkwood Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Tajveer Singh for the Appellant. Mr. R. Murlidhar with B.G.Yewale i/by Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 29TH JANUARY, 2013 PC: In this appeal by the revenue, following question of law has been formulated for our consideration. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s.271 (1)(c) on the ground that agreement between assessee and MIWI is not sham and bogus? 2) It is stated by the Counsel for the appellant that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was deleted by the impugned order of the Tribunal. The deletion of penalty was in view of the fact that in quantum proceeding this Court has confirmed the deletion of the quantum addition in Income Tax Appeal No.1501,1509,1515 to 1517 of 2007 by its order dated 29/7/2011. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3) The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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