Itxa/2019/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12,Mumbai v. M/S. Dirfection Slftware Solutions, Mumbai
High Court
01 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2019/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12,Mumbai v. M/S. Dirfection Slftware Solutions, Mumbai
Date of order
01 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/2019/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12,Mumbai v. M/S. Dirfection Slftware Solutions, Mumbai, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT 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: 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
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax12, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Direction Software Solutions
..Respondent.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the appellant.Ms. Beena Pillai for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT 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.In the present case, the quantum addition was made by disallowing the claim made by the assessee in the return of income. When a claim made by the assessee in the return of income is disallowed, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars as contemplated under Section
271(1)(c) of the Act.
3.In these circumstances, deleting of the penalty imposed
under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ITAT cannot be faulted.
4.In the result, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is
dismissed with 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.