The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai v. Piramal Enterprises Limited
High Court
24 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai v. Piramal Enterprises Limited
Date of order
24 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai v. Piramal Enterprises Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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: 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.3012 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai........Appellant.VersusPiramal Enterprises Limited..............Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ.
DATE : 24[th] June, 2011.
P.C. :
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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.In the present case, additions were made on account of interest
on advances given to the employees, disallowance of bad debts and dis-allowance of interest was made under Section 14A of the Act. Subsequently,
penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied on account of the above addition / disallowances, which were deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3.Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the deletion of the addition on interest on advances given to the employees has been dismissed by this Court. As regards the disallowance of bad debts is concerned, making wrong claim cannot be a ground for imposing penalty. In respect of dis-allowance of interest under Section 14A is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is that the assessee itself has withdrawn the claim of interest during the assessment year in question. In these circumstances, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, 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.