The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Orient Press Ltd
High Court
24 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Orient Press Ltd
Date of order
24 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
1993-94, 1995-96
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Orient Press Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Orient Press Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanjiv Shah for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The revenue is in appeal in respect of the order
of the ITAT for the assessment year 1993-94 and
1994-95. The tribunal on the facts found that the
AO for the assessment year 1995-96 did not impose
any penalty on the same set of facts as per
assessment years 1993-94 and 994-95. The tribunal
noted that the dropping of penalty proceedings for
the assessment year 1995-96 was a conscious act by
the concerned officer as is evident from the
specific order dropping the penalty proceedings for
that year. No distinctive features were pointed out
as to why the penalty was not imposed for the
assessment year 1995-96 which were different from
the assessment years in question. The tribunal
noted that the assessee all along had taken a stand
(-2-)
that due to paucity of time certain relevant record
could not be located. Considering the findings of
fact recorded, in our opinion, as the revenue was
unable to show any distinctive features, we find no
fault with the findings recorded by the tribunal.
Consequently, there is no merit in this appal which
is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.