Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Mumbai...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Mumbai v. M/S. Mars Foods Services

High Court 02 Dec 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Mumbai v. M/S. Mars Foods Services
Date of order
02 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Mumbai v. M/S. Mars Foods Services, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: P.C. :- Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 158BFA (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5750 of 2010. The Commissioner of Income-tax - Mumbai ... Appellant. Versus M/s. Mars Foods Services ... Respondent. Mr Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr Jitendra Jain i/by PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.DATE : 2 December, 2011. P.C. :- Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 158BFA (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal. In the present case, return for the block period was filed by the assessee on 28[th] September,2011 declaring certain undisclosed income. In view of the subsequent amendment to Section 158BFA of the Act by Finance Act 2002 with retrospective effect from 1.7.95 additional liability was imposed on the assessee. The question was, whether the penalty can be levied on the said additions made pursuant to the retrospective amendment introduced by Finance Act,2002.The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd reported in 243 ITR 48 has held that where the additional liability is Ladda imposed on account of the retrospective amendment introduced by the Act, penalty cannot be levied. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (A.R.Joshi,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