In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.apl (India) Private Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1059 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.APL (India) Private Limited..Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.Mr.S.J. Mehta for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 29TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The question sought to be raised in this appeal revolves around deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that there was no concealment of income. The tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the CIT (A). In view of the concurrent finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal.
2.So far as other questions are concerned, the learned counsel for the revenue has not pressed the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
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