Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indian...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd

High Court 28 Sep 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd
Date of order
28 Sep 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: 3.Since the quantum appeals have already been dismissed, the present appeals challenging imposition of penalty have to be and are accordingly dismissed but without any 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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1483/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate versus INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None AND + ITA 1482/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate versus INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None % Date of Decision: 28[th] September, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No MANMOHAN, J 1.Present appeals have been filed under Section 260A of Income ITA 1483, 1482/2010 Page 1 of 2 Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) challenging the common order dated 29[th ] September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in ITA Nos. 3366/Del/2009 and 3367/Del/2009, for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 2.Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for Revenue fairly submitted at the Bar that the present two appeals pertain to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act and the quantum appeals with regard to these assessment years have already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26[th] February, 2009 in ITA Nos. 1156 & 1157/2007. 3.Since the quantum appeals have already been dismissed, the present appeals challenging imposition of penalty have to be and are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 ng CHIEF JUSTICE ITA 1483, 1482/2010 Page 2 of 2
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