In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 26, Mumbai v. Shri Paresh Vaish, 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 deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.955 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 26, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Shri Paresh Vaish
..Respondent.
Mr.N.A. Kazi for the appellant.Mr.Vivek Shetty i/by DSK Legal for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE :
13th September 2011
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.Counsel for the parties state that the quantum addition made in the present case was deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order, being Income Tax Appeal No.785 of 2011 has been dismissed by us today. Since the quantum addition has been deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said order has been upheld by this Court, the question of sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not arise.
3.The appeal is accordingly 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.