1 itxa4886-10+1 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4886 OF 2010 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4887 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. HDFC Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. F.V. Irani with A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 19TH JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in these appeals. The Tribunal in para 13 of its order has held that the assessee had disclosed all particulars relating to the depreciation claimed by the assessee and merely because the assessee had claimed depreciation at a higher rate than allowable, it cannot be a 2 itxa4886-10+1 ground to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961. No fault can be found with the above reasoning of the ITAT. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)