The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. M/S.trillizo Holdings P. Limited
High Court
08 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. M/S.trillizo Holdings P. Limited
Date of order
08 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. M/S.trillizo Holdings P. Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, thus 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3940 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Trillizo Holdings P. Limited
..Respondents.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Office objections, if any are over-ruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal.
2.The issue sought to be raised in this appeal revolves around Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that levy of penalty is not justified, since there was no conceiling and it was a bona fide claim made by the assessee.
3.Under these circumstances, looking to the findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The appeal is, thus dismissed 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