The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai v. Industrial Development Bank Of India
High Court
21 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai v. Industrial Development Bank Of India
Date of order
21 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai v. Industrial Development Bank Of India, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 258 OF 2011WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 260 OF 2011WITH INCOME TAX APEAL (L) NO.261 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU), MumbaiVs.Industrial Development Bank of India
...Appellant...Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr. Ajit Shah with Shrihari Iyer for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011.
P.C.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The ITAT has recorded the finding of the fact that it is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessee has concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars. There was no dispute regarding the assets given on lease, but the dispute was, whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation on those assets which were leased out. The issue being debatable, the ITAT
has deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3.We see no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
( A.A. SAYED, 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.