The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. Mehul Ramniklal Shah
High Court
11 Jun 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. Mehul Ramniklal Shah
Date of order
11 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. Mehul Ramniklal Shah, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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 BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3044 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-22. Vs.
...Appellant.
Mehul Ramniklal Shah.
...Respondent.
....
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant.Dr.K.Shivram with Mr.A.R.Singh and Mr.P.S.Savla for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
June 11, 2010.
P.C. :
Both, the Commissioner (Appeals) and in appeal, the Tribunal have concurred in the view that a deletion of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was warranted in the facts of this case. The Commissioner of Appeals has held that no positive material was gathered by the Assessing Officer during either the assessment or the penalty proceedings to prove the concealment or the inaccuracy of the particulars of the income submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the addition in the quantum case was made only on the basis of estimate. Having regard to this finding, no substantial question of
law arises. The appeal is dismissed. In view of the order which
has been passed, it would not be necessary to answer the second part of the question as formulated.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, 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