In International Taxation v. M/S. Dhl Operations Bv, Netherland, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: 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: Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2320 OF 2010
The Director of Income-Tax
(International Taxation)...Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. DHL Operations BV, Netherland...Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. B.G. Yewale for Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011.
P.C.
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 of the judgment has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee in its return of income had furnished full particulars and that the issue being debatable the matter was referred to the Special Bench. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs.Reliance Petroproducts Ltd.,reported in 189 Taxman 322 (SC) has held that the claim made by the assessee was under a bonafide belief that the claim was allowable and therefore penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
3.In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal we see no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( A.A. SAYED, 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.