The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.ramco Trading Private Limited, Mumbai
High Court
19 Jan 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.ramco Trading Private Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
19 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.ramco Trading Private Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.83 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, MumbaiVersus
..Appellant.
M/s.Ramco Trading Private Limited, Mumbai
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 19[th] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the assessed income is a loss, no penalty can be levied prior to the amendment of sub clause (a) of Explanation 4 of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2002 even though the amendment of sub-clause (a) of Explanation 4 to Section 271 of the Income Tax Act is applicable to all assessment years and not only with effect from 1-4-2003 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited in Civil Appeal No.5065 of 2008 ?
The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited (2008)304 ITR 308, held the earlier judgment in Virtual Soft not to lay down the correct position of law. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 21[st ]July 2008 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for a decision afresh on merits after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The question of law would stand answered accordingly.
3.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.