ITO 12 (3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LAB DEVICE INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6276/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 July 2021AY 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming bogus purchases. The penalty amount was Rs. 87,716/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was correctly deleted by the CIT(A) and if the appeal was maintainable given the low tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR
Hearing: 21.06.2021Pronounced: 12.07.2021

O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], dated 17.06.2019. The assessment was framed by the

2.

The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect to the claims of assessee on bogus purchases on which depreciation as claimed. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “

1.

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 14. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.87,716/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income and thus furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 27 l( 1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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 →