In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. Padode Communication Private Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly stands dismissed 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.1067 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai ..Appellant.
Versus
Padode Communication Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009.
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The issue sought to be raised in this appeal revolves around penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The tribunal has taken into account the factual circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record and after appreciation thereof, recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had furnished the details of funds available with him in order to explain that borrowed funds were not diverted for a non-business purpose. No fault can be found with the view taken by the tribunal. The view taken by the tribunal is a reasonable and possible view.
2.We see no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(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.