The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Mumbai v. Khandwala Securities Limited
High Court
07 Mar 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Mumbai v. Khandwala Securities Limited
Date of order
07 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Mumbai v. Khandwala Securities Limited, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 (L) NO.1506 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income-Tax - 4, Mumbai
Versus
Khandwala Securities Limited
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.B.G. Yewale i/by Rajesh Shah & Co., for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 7[th] March, 2011.
1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied on account of the additions made in the reassessment order by holding that the amount of Rs.5.50 lakhs paid for stock exchange membership card cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The said addition was deleted by the Tribunal.
2.Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Techno Shares and Stocks
Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2010] 327 ITR 323 (SC), the expenditure incurred for acquiring stock exchange membership card would be allowable expenditure.
3.In this view of the matter, since the quantum addition is deleted,
deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the deletion of the quantum addition cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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.