AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a plausible view based on accounting standards and judicial precedents, and had made full disclosure. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
What were the facts?
The assessee bank claimed deduction for lease operating expenses based on a change in accounting policy, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee claims deduction based on a plausible interpretation of accounting standards and judicial precedents, and whether the penalty order was passed within the time limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)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 citing322 ITR 156 · 2010 · Read judgment
- CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows953 citing73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · SC
- Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors501 citing306 ITR 277 · 2008 · SC
- CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.70 citing404 ITR 409 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.33 citing341 ITR 593 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- Granite Gate Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax9 citing102 Taxmann.com 236 · 2019 · HC · Read judgment
- Bata India Ltd. v. DCIT5 citing11 Taxmann.com 453
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These five appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], all dated 06.03.2025 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively, in the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
As the facts involved in the five appeals were common and the grounds raised by the assessee were also identical, all the matters were heard together and are being dispo
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 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026