:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.719 OF 2006 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1054 OF 2005 Director of Income Tax (International Taxation). ..Appellant. Vs. Rajyalakshmi Laboratories Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal in terms of the questions formulated in Para-5 of the appeal memo. They pertain to imposition of penalty. The CIT (Appeals) on considering the material before it set aside the order of the A.O. imposing penalty. Revenue aggrieved by the same preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal noted firstly that the assessee company was of the bonafide belief that its income as royalty is not taxable as per the provisions of DTAA between India and Italy. Secondly, Tribunal noted that in respect of quantum, the learned CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee by order dated 11.2.2002. Consequently, it held that in the circumstances, he was of the opinion that addition was made on account of difference of opinion for which no penalty under section-271(1)(c) is leviable. Reliance was placed on various judgments. :2: 2. We find no fault in the reasonings adopted by the tribunal considering Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the light of that, questions as framed would not arise. Accordingly motion with appeal stand dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)