Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.jinesh Chemicals Private Limited

High Court 15 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.jinesh Chemicals Private Limited
Date of order
15 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06, 2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.jinesh Chemicals Private Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 4.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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1797 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Jinesh Chemicals Private Limited..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Dipak Trasawala with Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 15[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06, following question of law has been raised for our consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs.5,05,110/- levied by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee – company ?” 2.The Tribunal by the impugned order has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent – assessee had incorrectly claimed the benefit of Section 80IB of the Act and thus the penalty proceedings were commenced. However, immediately after making a claim for the benefit of Section 80IB, the respondent – assessee withdrew its claim and also paid the additional tax payable. 3.In identical circumstances, penalty proceedings initiated against the respondent – assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2004-05 was dropped by the assessing officer. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed on the respondent – assessee. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, 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