Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -4, Mumba...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -4, Mumbai v. Oasis Securities Ltd

High Court 16 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -4, Mumbai v. Oasis Securities Ltd
Date of order
16 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -4, Mumbai v. Oasis Securities Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITA (T) 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: Accordingly, 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

Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No.3 of 2011. The Commissioner of Income-tax -4, MumbaiVersusOasis Securities Ltd ... Appellant.... Respondent. Mr Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr Beena Pilai for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.DATE : 16 January, 2012. P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITA (T) 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.The assessment year involved herein is 2002-2003. 3.The ITAT in para No. 7.2 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that in AY 2004-05 and 2005-06, the penalty was sought to be imposed upon the assessee and on being objected, the penalty proceedings were dropped. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the penalty proceedings were dropped as the revenue was satisfied that there was no concealment of income and accordingly deleted the penalty imposed in the assessment year in question. No case is made out by the Revenue to show that the facts in the assessment year in Ladda question are different from the facts in AY 2004-05 and 2005-06. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R.Joshi,J) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan