Case LawHigh Court › Wta/82/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Wta/82/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Asofen Ltd

High Court 14 Oct 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wta/82/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Asofen Ltd
Date of order
14 Oct 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wta/82/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Asofen Ltd, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.

Issue: The questions framed is as under:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that it is essential to invoke specific explanation to 18(1)(c) of W.T.Act, before passing of a penalty order u/s.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY WEALTH TAX APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2002ANDWEALTH TAX APPLICATION NO.82 OF 2002 WEALTH TAX APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2002 AND WEALTH TAX APPLICATION NO.82 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Wealth-tax ..Applicant. V/s. Asofan Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Parag Vyas i/b. Dr.T.C. Kaushik for applicant in all the appalications. Mr.K.Gopal for respondent in all the applications. CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2005. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Mr.K.Gopal, the learned counsel for the respondent waives service. 3. Heard finally by the consent of the parties. Both the parties agree that the question sought to be raised by the Revenue needs consideration at the hands of this Court. Therefore, dispensing with the reasons -= : 2 : =- in support of this order, the Tribunal is directed to refer the question framed for the opinion of this Court with statement of case. The questions framed is as under:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that it is essential to invoke specific explanation to 18(1)(c) of W.T.Act, before passing of a penalty order u/s. 18(1)(c) of W.T.Act, particularly when the said explanation is very much a part of the main section?"’ . In this view of the matter, applications stand disposed off in terms of this order. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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