Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. O...

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.)
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