In this appeal under Section 260-A challenging the Tribunal's order setting aside a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the High Court held that the question raised did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2103-13-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2103 OF 2013
Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune .. Appellant
v/s.
Shri. Shriram Hiralal Soni ..Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant Mr. F.V. Irani a/w Atul Jasani for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J. DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2015. P.C.
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the penalty order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
1 of 2
Uday S. Jagtap
2103-13-itxa=.doc
(A) and directing the Assessing Officer to re-visit the issue of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ?”
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
2 of 2
Uday S. Jagtap
1 issue framed by the court
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the penalty order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and directing the Assessing Of
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune
Shri. Shriram Hiralal Soni
M.S. Sanklecha
G.S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
