M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE BANK OF MADURA LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1589/CHNY/2010Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 January 2016AY 1996-979 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that making a claim based on bogus transactions and forged documents, and then withdrawing it, constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on assets purchased and leased back, which the Assessing Officer found to be bogus transactions based on forged invoices. The assessee subsequently withdrew the depreciation claim when confronted with evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether claiming depreciation on bogus transactions, supported by forged invoices, amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, warranting penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Hearing: 29.12.2015Pronounced: 07.01.2016

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai, dated

28.06.

2010 and pertains to assessment year 1996-97. 2 I.T.A. No.1589/Mds/10

2.

Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel f

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →