Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S....

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.)
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