SUJATA HEMLAL BAKHRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4611/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 February 2017AY 2010-119 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed that the assessee deliberately made a false claim for excess interest deduction. However, it found that a 300% penalty was not appropriate and directed the Assessing Officer to levy the minimum penalty of 100% of the income sought to be evaded.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for interest on a loan taken for property purchase against rental income. The Assessing Officer found that a significant portion of the loan was not used for the rental property and disallowed the excess interest claimed. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether claiming excess interest deduction on a loan not fully utilized for rental property constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c). What is the appropriate quantum of penalty in such a case?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B Vora
Hearing: 07/11/2016Pronounced: 03/02/2017

आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

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 →