PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 vs. TDT COPPER LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable. The disallowances were based on a difference of opinion, and the Assessee had substantial losses, indicating no intention to evade tax.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order deleting a penalty imposed on the Assessee. The penalty was levied after certain deductions claimed by the Assessee were disallowed in quantum proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when disallowances are based on a difference of opinion and the assessee has incurred substantial losses, suggesting no intent to evade tax.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 425/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 Appellant Through: Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate. versus I ' TDT COPPER LTD Respondent Through CORAM; JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI ORDER % 22.07.2016 CM No. 25602/2016 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 25601/2016 (Condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the ) appeal is condoned. 3. The application is allowed. ITA 425/2016 4. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23"^ September, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA No. 2411/Del/2006 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2000-01. This is an appeal on issue of penalty. ITA 425/20.16 Page l of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
In the quantum proceedings the Assessing Officer ('AO') by an order dated 11^^ June 2003 disallowed the following deductions claimed by the Assessee: a. Foreign exchange fluctuation loss; b. Fee paid to the Registrar of Companies; c. Repairs and maintenance expenses; and d. Prior period expenses. 6. The disallowance by the AO of the above deductions was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in the quantum proceedings by an order dated 27^*^ February, 2004. 7. In the penalty proceedings the AO by order dated 30'*^ March 2005 imposed on the Assessee a penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, i.e., Rs. 62,09,206/-. The Assessee's appeal was allowed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 21®^ April, 2006 and the penalty was deleted. The CIT(A) held that the claims of the Assessee came to be disallowed due to a difference of opinion on the allowability of the deductions. Significantly, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessee had suffered huge losses and in the return of income for the AY in question showed a loss of Rs. 11,97,50,110/-. Even the assessed loss, as determined by the AO, was as high as Rs. 10,35,22,302/-. In the circumstances, the CIT(A) concluded that it could not be said that the Assessee intended to avoid or evade income tax by making the above claims. ITA 425/2016 Page 2 of 3
The above view of the CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings has been concurred with by the ITAT in the impugned order dated 23'"'' September, 2015. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused Section 271(l)(c) read with the Explanation and the decision of this Court dated 4^*^ February 2016 in ITA No. 439/2003 {Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi), the Court is not persuaded to hold that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT on the non-applicability of the imposition of penalty suffers from any perversity or gives rise to any substantial question of law. 10. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J P NAJMirWAZIRI, J JULY 22, 2016 kk ITA 425/2016 Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026