The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai v. M/S.dbc Sons (Gujarat) Private Limited
High Court
08 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai v. M/S.dbc Sons (Gujarat) Private Limited
Date of order
08 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai v. M/S.dbc Sons (Gujarat) Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.4,47,153/- levied under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1650 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.DBC Sons (Gujarat) Private Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Jitendra Jain i/by PDS Legal for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ.
DATE : 8[th] June, 2011.
P.C. :
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.4,47,153/- levied under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Dodsal Limited reported in [2009] 312 ITR 112 (Bom) has held that penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is discretionary and not mandatory. In the present case, the Tribunal in exercise of discretion has deleted the penalty. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, 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.
EaseValue