Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii, Pune. v. M/S. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates

Bombay HC5 Dec 2014ITXA/272/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed an income-tax appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's deletion of a penalty. The deletion resulted from the Tribunal's finding that no concealment occurred during the quantum appeal, and the High Court found no perversity or error of law in that conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. No costs awarded.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii, Pune. Vs M/S. Raviraj Kothari… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

911.itxa272.13.doc

¶2

sbw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.272 OF 2013

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Pune. ..Appellant

¶6

Versus - M/s. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates ..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, i/b. Vipul A. Bajpayee for the Appellant.

¶8

Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶10

A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 5^th DECEMBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Though this Appeal was placed for “directions” Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this Appeal and Mr. Naniwadekar, learned counsel, appearing for the Assessee, on notice agree that the matter be heard for admission. The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal on 21^st October, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.207/PN/2010 for assessment year 2004-05 is under challenge in this Appeal.

¶14

2] We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and the questions

¶15

1/2

¶16

911.itxa272.13.doc

¶17

raised by the Revenue.

¶18

3] The Special Bench of the Tribunal had upheld the claim of the Assessee for deduction under section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of this, the Commissioner deleted the penalty.

¶19

4] The finding of the Commissioner while deleting the penalty is reproduced in para-3 of the Tribunal order. The Tribunal concluded that in substantive/quantum proceedings, the issue was debatable. There was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereto on the part of the Assessee while claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) during the assessment year under consideration. On this conclusion, the penalty was deleted. We do not find any perversity in this order and approach of the Tribunal. The order is not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record either. The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶20

(A. A. SAYED, J.) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶21

wadhwa

¶22

2/2

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii, Pune. v. M/S. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii, Pune. v. M/S. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Iii, Pune, Vs Prakash Bhikulal Shah (Huf)

Commissioner of Income Tax- 8, Vs M/S. Shri Abdulla Mohammed, C/O. P. N. Subramanian and Co.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - Ii, Vs M/S. Hardware Engineers and Builders Pvt.Ltd.

Director of Income Tax (It) - I, Vs M/S. Commerzbank Ag,(Successor to Dresdner Bank Ag. C/O. B.S.R. and Co.

The Commissioner of Income Tax 19 Vs M/S Wellworth Laboratories

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 9, Mumbai. Vs M/S. Maharaja Builders Pvt.Ltd.