COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAMPRASAD INVESTMENTS & TRADERS PVT. LTD.

ITA/179/1998HC GujaratGJHC24024217199828 September 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed an application before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to state a case. The application concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ITAT had previously deleted certain additions made to the assessee's income. The Revenue argued that the ITAT was wrong in deleting the penalty.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court rejected the Revenue's application. The Court noted that the ITAT had deleted the additions made to the assessee's income. Consequently, the Tribunal's finding that there was no basis for the imposition of penalty was considered correct. As the underlying additions were deleted, the question of penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was rightly cancelled by the Tribunal. The High Court discharged the rule issued in the application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the Appellate Tribunal was incorrect in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue sought to have the ITAT directed to state a case on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 179 of 1998

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? Yes

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judg

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →