KEKI J VAKIL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 9,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5940/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 December 2016AY 2002-038 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the penalties, following its own prior decisions on identical facts for the assessee's group. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations were bona fide and unrebutted, and no material evidence contradicted the assessee's position.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The penalties were based on additions made on an estimated basis for purchases and peak credit.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on additions made on an estimated basis when the assessee provides a bona fide and unrebutted explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N.PRASAD,JM & SHRI M.K. AGGARWAL, AM

Hearing: 15/12/2016Pronounced: 21/12/2016

आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुंबई / DR, 5. ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy//

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 →