The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.jhunjhunwala Stock Brokers Private Limited
High Court
24 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.jhunjhunwala Stock Brokers Private Limited
Date of order
24 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.jhunjhunwala Stock Brokers Private Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1507 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Jhunjhunwala Stock Brokers Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 24[th] AUGUST 2009
P.C. :
1.The issue raised in this appeal revolves around penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Even assuming that the appeal against the quantum addition is pending, still that will not make any difference, because even on merits following the Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P.Ltd. reported in [2009] 310 I.T.R. 421, penalty could not have been imposed.
2.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(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.
EaseValue