In Itxa/4887/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai v. Hdfc Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED : 19TH JULY, 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 these appeals.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4886 OF 2010
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4887 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.M/s. HDFC Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Mr. F.V. Irani with A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED : 19TH JULY, 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 these appeals. The Tribunal in para 13 of its order has held that the assessee had disclosed all particulars relating to the depreciation claimed by the assessee and merely because the assessee had claimed depreciation at a higher rate than allowable, it cannot be a
2 itxa4886-10+1
ground to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961. No fault can be found with the above reasoning of the ITAT. Accordingly, the appeals are 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.