The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V, Pune v. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd
High Court
16 Oct 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V, Pune v. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
16 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V, Pune v. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Pune
..Appellant
versus
Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent
--------
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv. i/b Mrs. Padma Diwakar for the Appellant.
Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent.
.............
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE: 16[th] October, 2012
P.C. :
1Whether the ITAT 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.
2The penalty in the present case arises on account of disallowance of the expenditure towards commission. The Tribunal in paragraph 61 of its
order has recorded a finding that the assessee has made full disclosure of all material facts and that in the scrutiny inquiry, the claim made by the assessee was disallowed by the assessing officer.
3Since the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.