SAIF HEALTH REMEDIES PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the expenditure for technical services, though surrendered, did not qualify as 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB as no falsity was proven and no incriminating material was found. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
A search operation was conducted on the assessee, leading to a surrender of income. The AO levied a penalty under Section 271AAB, which the CIT(A) partly sustained on an expenditure for technical services.
What were the issues?
Whether a surrendered expenditure, recorded in books and not proven to be false, constitutes 'undisclosed income' for levying penalty under Section 271AAB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 31/07/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the penalty order dated 06.08.2019 passed u/s. 271AAB of the Act by the ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- u/s. 271AAB of the Act, out of the total penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- levied by the Ld. AO.
Facts of the case in brief are that assessee, a company, had filed its return of income for
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 271AAB
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1564/KOL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse Shoe… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1559/KOL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1558/KOL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1557/KOL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1556/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
