The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S.jindal Iron & Steel Co.ltd
High Court
In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S.jindal Iron & Steel Co.ltd
Date of order
—
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S.jindal Iron & Steel Co.ltd, the High Court 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: 6.Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
ttm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2811 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-5
.. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Jindal Iron & Steel Co.Ltd.
.. Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant
Ms.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011.
P.C.
1. Not on board. By consent, taken up for admission.
2. 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.
3.The ITAT in para 21 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that in the present case, the Assessee has disclosed all the material facts fully and truly while filing the return of income and that the Assessee had to add back the excise component in view of the amended sec.145A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the Asessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income.
5.Since the requisite conditions for invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act have not been fulfilled, the decision of the ITAT deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be faulted. Act have not been fulfilled, the decision of the ITAT deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be faulted.
6.Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(K.K. TATED, 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.