MAHINDRA HOLDINGS & FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1294/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2016AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the penalty should also be set aside. Accordingly, the issue of penalty was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication in line with the outcome of the quantum appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) related to a bad debt write-off. The quantum appeal concerning this issue had been set aside by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition is set aside for fresh adjudication. The assessee contended that the write-off was a bonafide business expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Mahajani
For Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, DR
Hearing: 06.10.2016Pronounced: 06.10.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.10.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee on 26.2.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-5, Mumbai dated 12.12.2013 for the assessment year 2007-2008. In this appeal, assessee raised the following ground which reads as under:-

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 →