The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. Johnson & Johnson Limited
High Court
25 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. Johnson & Johnson Limited
Date of order
25 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. Johnson & Johnson Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly 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.2830 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Johnson & Johnson Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Subhash S. Shetty for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 25[th] July, 2011.
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.
The dispute in the present case relates to claiming expenditure
on account of drawings and designs as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure. According to the assessee, the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer as also the appellate authorities have held that the expenditure was capital in nature. The assessee has not contested the decision of the Tribunal in view of the fact that relief has been granted to the assessee by way of depreciation.
3.The finding of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is that the assessee bona fide believed that the expenditure was allowable as a revenue expenditure and in such a case there being no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained.
4.In our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(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.