The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.g.g. Automotive Gears Limited
High Court
09 Mar 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.g.g. Automotive Gears Limited
Date of order
09 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
2000-2001
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.g.g. Automotive Gears Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : 1.The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raises the question, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting a penalty of Rs.10.18 lakhs imposed under Section 271(1)(c).
Decision: The appeal shall stand dismissed.
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 NO.2380 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.G.G. Automotive Gears Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant.
Mr.Anil Mishra i/by PKP Legal Solutions for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 9[th] March, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raises the question, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting a penalty of Rs.10.18 lakhs imposed under Section 271(1)(c). While ordering deletion, in the context of an appeal for assessment year 2000-2001, the Tribunal observed that the addition / dis-allowance which was made by the Assessing Officer was on the basis of a tax audit report submitted by the assessee together with the return. Hence, the assessee had in the return
disclosed all material particulars. Apart from this, the Tribunal observed that the dis-allowance was of a debatable nature on which two views were possible with regard to the claim of expenditure. In the circumstances, the exercise of discretion for the imposition of a penalty was not warranted. The approach and the findings of the Tribunal do not suffer from any error and no substantial question of law is raised. The appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.