Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : The Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs M/s.Aditya Birla Nova Limited (Successor) (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Inome Tax Appeal No..3899 OF 2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/08/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)( c ) . That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. In any event we are bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd… Merely because Supreme Court was not referred the Explanation-1 to section 271(1) in the judgment of the in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be said that the judgment is per-incuriam.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3899 OF 2010

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III

Versus

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031