Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/4296/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/4296/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5 Mumbai v. Diana Watches And Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd

High Court 30 Nov 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/4296/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5 Mumbai v. Diana Watches And Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
30 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/4296/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5 Mumbai v. Diana Watches And Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: P.C. :- DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 1.Short question raised in this appeal is, whether the ITAT was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.

Decision: In our opinion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby 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.4296 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-5 V/s.M/s. Diana Watches & Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.Ms. Aasifa Khan for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. P.C. :- DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 1.Short question raised in this appeal is, whether the ITAT was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2.The assessee had claimed rent receivable from Vysya Bank as bad debts under the head 'income from business'. Admittedly, in the earlier years, rental income received from Vysya Bank was assessed as 'business income'. The Tribunal has given a finding of fact that the assessee has properly explained reasons for claiming bad debts and that the assessee has neither concealed any income nor filed filed inaccurate particulars before the assessing officer. In these circumstances, deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is justified. In our opinion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.M. SAVANT, 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