Itxa/577/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 Mumbai v. Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd
High Court
19 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/577/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 Mumbai v. Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd
Date of order
19 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/577/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 Mumbai v. Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, 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 NO.577 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Ms.Aarti Vissanji with S.J. Mehta for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2012
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The assessment year involved herein is AY 2004-05.
3.The ITAT in para 9 of its order recorded a finding that the assessing officer while giving effect to the order of CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10A of the Act
amounting to Rs.3,71,33,183/- whereas the claim allowable was only to the extent of Rs.3.26 crores. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee had deliberately claimed excess exemption under Section 10A of the Act and, therefore, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ITAT relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) held that there is no material to suggest that higher claim was made deliberately and accordingly deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our opinion, no question of law arises from the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R. JOSHI, 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.