PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S SHOBHA SPACE (P) LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel conceded that the matters were covered by a previous decision of the Court. Therefore, no substantial questions of law arose for consideration.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were filed for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
What were the issues?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when all ingredients for its levy were satisfied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2,590 citing359 ITR 565 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.686/2015
C/w.
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.687/2015
IN INCOME TAX APPEAL No.686/2015
BETWEEN:
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE – 560 001
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(3),
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
2 AND:
M/S SOBHA SPACE (P) LTD SHOBHA CORPORETE OFFICE SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, BEALNDUR POST, BANGALORE-103 PAN:AAICSO419G
...RESPONDENT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29/06/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.887/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:29/06/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 887/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN INCOME TAX APPEAL No.687/2015
BETWEEN:
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE – 560 001
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(3),
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL)
AND:
M/S. SOBHA SPACE (P) LTD SHOBHA CORPORETE OFFICE SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, BEALNDUR POST, BANGALORE-103 PAN:AAICSO419G
...RESPONDENT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29/06/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.888/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:29/06/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 888/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
4 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law: “Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) overlooking the provisions of the Act and even when all the ingredients are satisfied for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the case of assessee?”
2.Learned counsel fairly concedes that the matters are covered by the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565.
In view of above, we find that when the issues are already covered by the decision of this Court, it
5 cannot be said any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration.
Hence, the present appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
Sk/-
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026