CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that imposing penalty on a debatable issue, especially when the jurisdictional High Court's view favored the assessee at the time, is not justified. The penalty was deleted as it was based on a matter that was settled by the Supreme Court later.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns penalty levied under Section 270A for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The penalty was based on additions related to deemed rental income and disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable on additions arising from debatable issues, particularly concerning deemed rental income and employee PF/ESIC contributions, when the law was not settled at the time of assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 270A,Section 23(1),Section 23(4),Section 36(1)(VA),Section 2(24)(X)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC32 citing142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · HC
- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 v. Gruh Finance Ltd.14 citing100 Taxmann.com 104 · 2018 · SC
- Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Pune5 citing147 Taxmann.com 333 · 2023 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): These appeals has been filed by the appellant/assessee against both order dated 15.10.2024 of Learned Commissioner of ITA No. 6315 & 6309/Mum/2024 CapaciteInfraprojects Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai[hereinafter referred to as the “CIT (A)”],passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively.
By this common order we propose to dispose off ITA No. 6315/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 6309/Mum/2024 as parties are same and facts
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 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026