Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii vs Dharamshi B Shah on 9 June, 2014
In this context,
we may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court
in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dharamshi B. Shah 1
in which referring to the earlier decision of the Court, the following
observations were made :
C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010
4. Despite these observations, in our opinion, this Appeal
need not be entertained. This is so because independently also, we
can safely come to the conclusion that the entire issue was a debatable
one. The dispute between the Assessee and the Revenue was with
reference to actual payment for purchase of the flat and whether
when the Assessee had purchased one more flat, though contagious,
could the Assessee claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that this latter issue is
covered by the decisions of High Court. It can thus be seen that the
Assessee had made a bona fide claim. Neither any income nor any
particulars of the income were concealed. As per the settled legal
position, merely because a claim is rejected, it would not
automatically give rise to penalty proceedings. Reference in this
URS 5 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:23:22 :::
6 12-ITXA 169-17.odt
respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance
Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.2
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1