Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai v. /M/s.Caltex Gas India Pvt. Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Income Tax Act, 1961 s. 271(1)(c)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We have perused the order of the Tribunal impugned inthis appeal. The respondent/assessee stated to have claimeddepreciation on goodwill. According to the appellant such claim was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rejected in the earlier assessment years. The assessee chose to makethe claim for the present assessment year…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR AT MADRASDATED: 16.08.2010CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHTAX CASE (APPEAL) No.764 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ..Appellant/Versus/M/s.Caltex Gas India Pvt. Ltd.,Gold Crest – 54 & 55,North Usman Road,T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017. ..RespondentTax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 21.01.2010 in ITA No.2269/Mds/2008. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VIII, Chennai-600 034 made in ITA.No.92/07-08 dated18.09.2008 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I(3), Chennai, made in G.I.No./PAN-AABCC1760H dated 27.12.2006 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005.For Appellant: Mr.K.Subramaniam(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The Revenue has come forward with this appeal and thequestion of law sought to be raised reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal was right indeleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) when the assessee has made bogus claim madeon the depreciation on goodwill? "
We have perused the order of the Tribunal impugned inthis appeal. The respondent/assessee stated to have claimeddepreciation on goodwill. According to the appellant such claim was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rejected in the earlier assessment years. The assessee chose to makethe claim for the present assessment year also. On that basis, itcannot be held that the claim itself was bogus. The question forconsideration was whether penalty could be levied on such a claimwhich was made by the assessee on the footing that the claim shouldbe construed as one of bogus. It is in that context the Tribunalheld that the claim of depreciation was not a bogus claim. Therefore, mere disallowance would not attract levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We are in full agreementwith the conclusion of the Tribunal. We therefore, do not find anyscope to entertain this appeal and no question of law, much less anysubstantial question of law, arises for consideration. The appealfails and the same is dismissed. sd/-Asst. Registrar/True copy/ Sub. Asst. RegistrarsaiTo1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)VIII, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle - I(3), Chennai.
The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. K. Subramaniam, Advocate. S.R.No.60857.T.C.(A) 764 OF 2010TRM (CO)GSK 26.08.2010.
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.