Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/4887/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/4887/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai v. Hdfc Ltd

High Court 19 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/4887/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai v. Hdfc Ltd
Date of order
19 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

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.

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 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.)
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