In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S.cheryl Laboratories P.ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether the ITAT 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: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ttm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.905 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-5.. AppellantVs.M/s.Cheryl Laboratories P.Ltd... Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant
Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011.
P.C.
1. Whether the ITAT 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 ITAT in para 7 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that in the present case, the assessee had made a claim which was not allowable.
Making a wrong claim cannot be a ground to hold that the Assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In these circumstances, deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be faulted.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(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