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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Mabahal S.shetty

High Court 03 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Mabahal S.shetty
Date of order
03 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Mabahal S.shetty, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Admit on the following questions: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty levied by Addl.

Decision: The Revenue to take steps to remove office objections within six weeks from today failing which the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution without further orders from this court.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 285 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 285 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellants Versus Shri. Mabahal S.Shetty .... Respondent Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar with Mr.N.R. Prajapati for Appellants. None for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 03, 2009 P.C. P.C. . Admit on the following questions: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty levied by Addl. CIT u/s. 271D by stating that the penalty be levied after adjustment of permissible amount of Rs.20,000/- which is relevant to section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in interpretation of Section 271D as they clearly state that the Assessee shall be liable to pay by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount taken/accepted or repaid? (c) Can the amount of penalty leviable u/s. 271D as mentioned in the Sections be interpreted to mean an amount which is above the basic exemption limit of Rs.20,000/-?" . Respondent waives service. . The Revenue to take steps to remove office objections within six weeks from today failing which the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution without further orders from this court.
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