The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. M/S.navbharat Builders
High Court
29 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. M/S.navbharat Builders
Date of order
29 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. M/S.navbharat Builders, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
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 (L) NO.1290 OF 2009ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1291 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Navbharat Builders
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 29TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The question sought to be raised in these appeals revolve around deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. None of the authorities have recorded a finding that there was concealment of facts on the part of assessee. The tribunal has also considered other facts and circumstances and reached to the conclusion that levy of penalty was unjustified.
2.In this view of the matter, we do not find any fault with the view taken by the tribunal. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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