ITO 27(2) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PADMA INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2366/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 July 2022AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition for bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to the profit element of these purchases. Subsequently, the AO levied a penalty based on this restricted addition.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the addition is made on an estimated basis due to bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Hearing: 26.07.2022Pronounced: 28.07.2022

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

(Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →