Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S Repro India Ltd

High Court In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S Repro India Ltd
Date of order
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S Repro India Ltd, the High Court allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: 2.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is a question raised in this appeal.

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5824 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7Vs. M/s Repro India Ltd. ...Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011. P.C. 1.Not on board. By consent of the parties taken on board. 2.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is a question raised in this appeal. 3.In the present case, the dispute was as to whether the advertisement and other expenses claimed by the assessee were capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee that the said expenses were revenue in nature. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by ITAT by holding that the expenditure was revenue expenditure. The appeal filed by the revenue against the said order is pending before this Court. 4.Question in the present case is whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5.The fact that the assessee bonafide believed that an expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure is not in dispute. In such a case, rejection of a claim made by the assessee, would not constitute concealment or furnishing in-accurate particulars of income so as to attract Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this view of the matter, deletion of penalty by the ITAT cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR , 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