Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Honeywell Automation India Limited

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016ITXA/54/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This income tax appeal challenged a Tribunal order deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The court held that penalty proceedings were unsustainable because the Revenue's quantum appeals in concurrent proceedings were dismissed, thus no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Penalty proceedings held unsustainable; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Honeywell Automation India… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

54-14-itxa=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2014

¶4

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-IV Pune

¶5

.. Appellant

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Honeywell Automation India Ltd.

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant Mr. Jas Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal for the respondent

¶10

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.

¶11

DATED : 20^th JUNE, 2016.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 8^th May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). This appeal relates to A.Y. 2002-03.

¶14

The Revenue has urged following question of law for our consideration :-

¶15

“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

54-14-itxa=.doc

of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on excessive claim u/s 10A of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the Department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal of setting aside of the case to the Assessing Officer?

¶20

The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the respondent assessee's appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This was on account of the fact that in quantum proceedings, the respondent assessee had succeeded and the Tribunal by an order dated 7^th September, 2011 set aside the dis-allowance on account of partial denial of deduction under Section 10A of the Act while restoring it to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

¶21

The Revenue had filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 7^th September, 2011 in quantum proceedings relating to A.Y. 2002-03 along with an order for A.Y. 2001-02 raising an identical issue being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 955 of 2012 and 973 of 2012. It is an admitted position between the parties that the above appeals filed by the Revenue in quantum proceedings were dismissed by the order of this Court dated 10^th September, 2014.

¶22

In the above view, the penalty proceedings at this stage are unsustainable. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

54-14-itxa=.doc

our consideration.

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶28

(A.K. MENON, J.)

¶29

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Honeywell Automation India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Honeywell Automation India Limited

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 C.I.T.B.C-Iv. Vs Smt. Asha M. Khatau.

The C.I.T.Kolhapur. Vs Shri Warana S.S.K.Ltd.

The C.I.T.B.C.Ii Vs M/S.Jugoslaveneka Limijaka Plovidba

Commissioner of Income TAX-23 Vs Harish K Alimchandani

Umidali S. Jairazbhoy and 4 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Smt. Premlata B. Lodha Vs Union of India and Ors.