The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S Capital Offshore Services P. Ltd Mumbai
High Court
07 Mar 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S Capital Offshore Services P. Ltd Mumbai
Date of order
07 Mar 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S Capital Offshore Services P. Ltd Mumbai, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
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 NO.1077 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ..
.. Appellant
vs
M/s Capital Offshore Services P. Ltd Mumbai .. Respondent
Mr.Tejveer Singh for Appellant.Mr.Prakash Shah a/w Mr.A.K.Jasani for Respondent
...
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND G.S.KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE :- 7th March,2014
PC:
1.Heard Mr.Tejveer Singh appearing for the Appellant. Perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld 'the order' of penalty to the tune of Rs.1,65,31,030/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. In reversing these concurrent orders, the Tribunal found and as a matter of fact that the Respondent-assessee genuinely entertained the view that the expenses/allowances were allowable. That was based on
legal position and as understood. Thereafter the Tribunal found that the authorities did not accept the claim and hence proceeded to impose penalty. This stand of the department/revenue in imposing penalty merely because it was in disagreement with the version of the assessee by itself and without 'anything more' could not be justification for imposing penalty. Such a finding of fact as rendered in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
4. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
(G.S.KULKARNI J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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.