Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii vs Dharamshi B Shah on 9 June, 2014
13. We have considered the rival submissions as also decisions cited by
the ld. counsel for the assessee and the learned DR. We are of the view
that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is binding on this
Tribunal as the said High Court is the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore,
following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, we
hold that penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee in the given facts and
circumstances of the case as the additions made in the quantum
proceedings based on which the penalty was imposed, is subject matter of
challenge before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has
admitted substantial question of law on the additions which are subject-
matter of imposition of penalty. We therefore direct that the penalty
imposed in both the assessment years be cancelled and both the appeals
of the assessee are allowed.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 37 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-22, ... vs Rasiklal M. Parikh on 19 March, 2019
12. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Rasiklal M. Parikh, ITA
No.169/2017, judgment dated 19.03.2019, where a contrary view on the
same issue has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, following
the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v.
Dharamshi B. Shah, 366 ITR 140 (Guj). The view taken in the aforesaid
decisions was that penalty cannot be deleted on the sole ground that the
additions in respect of which penalty was imposed gave rise to substantial
question of law and admitted for consideration by the High Court.
1