Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S...

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.)
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