Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/558/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/558/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18 Mumbai v. Asia Estate Developers

High Court 01 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/558/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18 Mumbai v. Asia Estate Developers
Date of order
01 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/558/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18 Mumbai v. Asia Estate Developers, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.A short question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Decision: In this view of the matter, 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1191 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-18 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Asia Estate Developers ..Respondent. Mr. D.K. Kamwal for appellant.Mr. K.B. Bhujale for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.A short question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, the assessee had wrongly claimed set off which was disallowed by the assessing officer and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed. The said penalty was deleted by the Tribunal. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 322 I.T.R. 158 (S.C.) held that making wrong claim does not amount to concealment so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, irrespective of the quantum disallowance is accepted by the assessee, in the facts of the present case, deletion of penalty cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, 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