Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2586/2011 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2586/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. Nath Capital And Financial Service Ltd

High Court 18 Nov 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2586/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. Nath Capital And Financial Service Ltd
Date of order
18 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/2586/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. Nath Capital And Financial Service Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.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: Hence 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

The order — as passed by the High Court

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(LOD) NO.1182 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Nath Capital & Financial Services Ltd. ..Respondent. None for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.None for the appellant. 2.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. 3.In the assessment year in question, the assessee claimed depreciation on the lease transaction with M/s. Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Limited on the ground that it was a operating lease transaction. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the transaction was a finance lease transaction and not operating lease transaction and hence depreciation was not allowable. The assessing officer thereupon initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty under Section 217(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.The ITAT has deleted the penalty on the ground that all the facts relating to the claim of depreciation were duly disclosed by the assessee and that the genuineness of the lease has not been doubted by the assessing officer. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that merely because the claim made by the assessee seeking depreciation has been rejected, the assessee cannot be made liable for penalty, in our opinion, seems to be just and proper. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan