Case LawHigh Court › The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v....

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Through: None

High Court 07 May 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Through: None
Date of order
07 May 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Through: None, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The questions of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in the present appeal read as under: “2.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in view of the decision of the Delhi High Cou...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 467/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ... Appellant Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE REKHA PALLI % O R D E R07.05.2019 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order 23[rd] October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.3358/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2. The questions of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in the present appeal read as under: “2.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (327 ITR 543) without appreciating the fact that the ratio laid down in that case is not applicable to facts of present case? 2.2 Whether on the facts and in the. circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT has erred in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied without appreciating the fact that Assessee has not furnished accurate particulars of book profit taxable under section 115JB of the IT Act which resulted in enhancement of book profit of the assessee by RS.2.97 crores?” 3. The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) in the order dated 8[th]March, 2016 rightly noted that the issue whether the computation for the purpose of section 115 JD of the Act resulted in enhancement of book profit for the Assessee was a debateable issue and, therefore, this was not a case where penalty should have been levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and having examined the impugned orders of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT, the Court is not persuaded to a different point of view. No substantial question of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J. MAY 07, 2019 sr REKHA PALLI, 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