Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.tara Jewels Export Private Limited

High Court 23 Jan 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.tara Jewels Export Private Limited
Date of order
23 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.tara Jewels Export Private Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: DATE : 23[rd] January 2013 P.C. : 1.The basic issue which arises in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by following the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1490 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Tara Jewels Export Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Arvind Pinto for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 23[rd] January 2013 P.C. : 1.The basic issue which arises in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by following the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Chemicals Limited reported in 322 ITR 158. 2.The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent – assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income so as to attract Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Reliance Petroproducts Chemicals Limited (supra) that mere claim for deduction which was otherwise not granted would not warrant imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further the Tribunal has also recorded the fact that on merits the claim of the respondent – assessee had been remanded by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal and the same was pending adjudication before the assessing officer. 3.In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, 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