Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Renu K...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Renu K.taurani

High Court 09 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Renu K.taurani
Date of order
09 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Renu K.taurani, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.541 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Renu K.Taurani ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Ram Upadhyay for appellant.None for respondent. P.C. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE :- 9TH JULY, 2009 1.Heard. Perused appeal. Office objections are overruled. Registry to register the appeal. 2.The question sought to be raised in the above appeal is relating to cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has recorded a finding on the basis of admitted fact that when the Assessing Officer brought to the notice of the assessee about the mistake of claim by the assessee, the assessee immediately withdrew the claim of dividend and admitted that the claim made by him under bonafide belief. Said finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence with which no fault can be found. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,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