The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ii, Kolhapur v. M/S.shivchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Pat Sansthalimited, Khed, District : Ratnagiri
High Court
08 Feb 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ii, Kolhapur v. M/S.shivchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Pat Sansthalimited, Khed, District : Ratnagiri
Date of order
08 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ii, Kolhapur v. M/S.shivchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Pat Sansthalimited, Khed, District : Ratnagiri, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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.2945 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, Kolhapur
Versus
M/s.Shivchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Pat SansthaLimited, Khed, District : Ratnagiri
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
None for the appellant.None for the respondent.
P.C. :
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 8[th] Ferbuary, 2010.
1.The office objections are waived. The registry is directed to register
the appeal.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has furnished cogent reasons for deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged contravention of Section 269SS. The assessee, as noted by the Tribunal, is a Credit Cooperative Society, which was carrying on its business in a mofussil area. The Tribunal relying upon its earlier decision has held that the assessee has held a bona fide though erroneous belief in regard to the inapplicability of the provisions of Section 269SS.
3.Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances as noted in the order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.