Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) - I, Mumbai v. Capital International Inc
High Court
05 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) - I, Mumbai v. Capital International Inc
Date of order
05 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) - I, Mumbai v. Capital International Inc, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1862 OF 2012
Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - I, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Capital International Inc A/c MLC Life Limited, Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ.
DATE : 5[th] February 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06, following question of law has been proposed for our consideration.
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when parameters laid in Explanation 1(B) of Section 271(1)(c) stand satisfied ?”
2.The Tribunal has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) after upholding the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that this was not a case of
furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing facts, as the same was always available with the assessing officer along with the return of income. The Tribunal recorded the fact that “this is a simple case of dis-allowance of loss, and has nothing to do with either inaccurate particulars or concealment of facts”. The Tribunal while deleting the penalty has followed the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited reported in 322 ITR 158 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that mere dis-allowance of a claim cannot ipso-facto lead to penalty.
3.In view of the above, we do not entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.