Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai v. M/S.jyothi Laboratories Private Limited
High Court
13 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai v. M/S.jyothi Laboratories Private Limited
Date of order
13 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai v. M/S.jyothi Laboratories Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : DATE : 13th September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3095 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Jyothi Laboratories Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.S.M. Shah for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 13th September 2011
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para 7.1 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee claimed deduction bona fide under Section 37(1) as a revenue expenditure, instead of claiming it as capital expenditure under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that the assessing officer has nowhere recorded that the expenditure claimed by the
assessee was not bona fide or not genuine. Making wrong claim of deduction under a bona fide belief cannot be a ground to hold that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of income. In these circumstances, deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted.
3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.