The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai v. Date
High Court
13 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai v. Date
Date of order
13 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai v. Date, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : DATE : 13th September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4128 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Smt.Savita C. Kothari, Mumbai ..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE :
13th September 2011
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting quantum additions made in the assessment year in question has been dismissed by this Court for non-removal of office objections and thus the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting quantum additions has attained finality.
3.In these circumstances, since the quantum additions stands deleted, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the
penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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