M/S. KRISHNA SOYA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the issue is debatable and the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of facts. The mere reclassification of loss from business to speculative by the AO, without concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a loss on forward booking of oil contracts as a business loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these transactions as speculative and disallowed the loss, initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating the assessment order had become final.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the classification of loss as speculative is debatable and the assessee has disclosed all facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.2,228 citing189 Taxmann 322 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd.33 citing310 ITR 121 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. Navichandra & Co.4 citing42 Taxmann.com 28 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI C.M. GARG & SHRI O.P.MEENA
PER O.P. MEENA, AM.
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Indore [in short referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 23.02.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. M/s. Krishna Soya Products Pvt.Ltd v DCIT(Appeals-I) ITA No.496/Ind/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 2. Ground No.1 and 2 relates to levy of penalty of Rs.5,10,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. A
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 43(5)
- Kamal Ramprasad Gupta, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 3458/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Nk Proteins Pvt. LtdTAXAP/449/20254 Aug 2026
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3)(1), Mumbai vs Ajit H Loladiya HUF, MumbaiITA 987/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2026AY 2012-13
- Raag Vihar Apartments Private Limited… vs DCIT Circle 16(1), C. R. Building, DelhiITA 8774/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
- Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited…ITA 7971/MUM/2025[2014]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026