The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sulzer Pumps Ltd
High Court
18 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sulzer Pumps Ltd
Date of order
18 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sulzer Pumps Ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appeal has been preferred on the following question of law : " Whether on the facts and in the circumstnaces of the case, and in the law the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of hte CIT (A) in deleting hte levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of hte I.T.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 189 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
Sulzer Pumps Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The appeal has been preferred on the following
question of law :
" Whether on the facts and in the
circumstnaces of the case, and in the law
the ITAT was justified in upholding the
order of hte CIT (A) in deleting hte levy of
penalty under section 271(1)(c) of hte I.T.
Act?"
. The learned tribunal upheld the order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the claims
by the appellant in the return of Income Tax were
bona fide. In K.C.Builders Vs. C.I.T.(SC) 265 ITR
562 S.C. has held that for the purpose of deleting
((-2-))
the penalty there must be mans rea. In the instant
case, as the finding is that it was bona fide, in
our opinion, the question of law as framed would not
arise. Hence,. appeal dismissed.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.