INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 438 OF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 438 v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri. Ajitabh Bachchan ... Respondent Mr. Sureshkumar for the Appellant. Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 09, 2009 DATED: JANUARY 09, 200 DATED: JANUARY 09, 200 P.C. P.C.P.C. . The appeal is in respect of Assessment year 1986-87. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Tribunal whereby the learned tribunal has set aside the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by holding that the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction. Section 271(1)(b) was introduced by Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 1.4.1989. We are concerned with the Assessment year previous to the amendment. The law as settled before he amendment can be reflected in the judgment of this court in CIT Vs. Kanzibhai (1991) 189 ITR 41. . Considering the above, in our opinion, the question of law as framed would not arise. Consequently, appeal dismissed. . Notice waived on behalf of Respondents. (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Finance Act, 2008.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Jan 2009. The bench was R S MOHITE, F I REBELLO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.