ITO,WARD 3 (5), KALYAN vs. JATIN S. GANDHI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2019/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2020AY 2009-106 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 under Section 271(1)(c) is applicable only for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Estimated disallowances of purchases cannot be termed as concealment. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases. The AO had levied the penalty based on estimated disallowances of purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on estimated disallowances of purchases without concrete evidence of concealment of income.

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(2)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, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT,

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →