MAK LOGISTICS(P)LTD,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(2), PORT BLAIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 978/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 March 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the penalty would automatically fall if the quantum additions were deleted. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer, against which a separate appeal was pending before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the appeal against the underlying quantum additions is still pending. The issue of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty without deciding the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order

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 →