The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Pune v. Bramha Bazaz Hotels Limited
High Court
08 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Pune v. Bramha Bazaz Hotels Limited
Date of order
08 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Pune v. Bramha Bazaz Hotels Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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: The appeal is accordingly 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.705 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Pune..Appellant.
Versus
Bramha Bazaz Hotels Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 8[th] August, 2011.
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para-8 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had failed to submit the certificate
in Form 29B along with the return of income inadvertently due to bona fide mistake and that the said certificate was furnished during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, it was not property to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3.The decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No question of arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. Sayed, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.