The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.indus Engineering Co
High Court
13 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.indus Engineering Co
Date of order
13 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.indus Engineering Co, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Revenue is in appeal on the following question:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in canceling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.426 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Indus Engineering Co. ...Respondent
Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok N. Kotangale with Mr. Arun D. Nagarjun,
for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO &J.H. BHATIA, JJ.DATED: 13th April, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED: 13th April, 2009
P.C.:
. Revenue is in appeal on the following
question:-
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in law, the Tribunal is right
in canceling the penalty levied
u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 of
Rs.31,10,250/- imposed upon the Respondent.?
Both the C.I.T. (A) and ITAT considering the facts
held that the discrapancy in stock was not about
quantity, but about valuation and in that context
held that the order of the A.O. imposing penalty
was a hard case and penalty ought not to have been
imposed. Considering the finding of fact and
exercise of discretion by the C.I.T. (A) and ITAT,
in our opinion, this is not a fit case to interfere
and consequently appeal dismissed.
(J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, 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.