In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai v. M/S.anila Silk Industries, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : DATE : 13th September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: 3.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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.961 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Anila Silk Industries..Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 13th September 2011
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para-3 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that in the present case additions were made by the assessing officer by estimating a particular amount of income, which estimation was reduced in appeal. In such a situation, deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be faulted.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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