NEELKAMAL BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that incurring interest expenditure is not in dispute, and disallowance of a claim for computing income from house property does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Merely because a claim is declined, penalty cannot be imposed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a real estate developer, claimed interest expenditure against its rental income. The AO disallowed this claim, stating the loan was not used for acquiring the property, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely on the disallowance of a claimed interest expenditure when the expenditure itself is not in dispute and all particulars were furnished.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.2,228 citing322 ITR 158 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM
O R D E R
Per R.C.Sharma, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, dated 31-8-2012, for the assessment year 2007-08, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act, amounting to Rs.2,81,323/-.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and building construction activities. During the previous year, it had earned rental income from its own properties which have been disclosed as income from house property in its return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the income of house property was 2 computed after disallowing a claim for deduction being interest paid on loan of Rs.8,35,407/-. The AO held that the said interest is not deductible in computing the house property income as the loan was not utilized for the acquisition of the said property. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed a penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.2,81,323/-. 3. By the impugned order the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO, against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record we found that penalty was levied with respect to disallowance of assessee’s claim for interest against income from house property. The assessee has incurred interest expenditure and claimed the same while computing the income from house property. The AO found that interest was not pertaining to the amount borrowed for the purpose of purchase of house property, therefore, disallowed assessee’s claim while computing income from house property. However, incurring of interest expenditure is not in dispute, merely because it was not allowed while computing income from house property, the same cannot be made a reason for levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has furnished all the particulars of income. Merely because assessee’s claim has been declined, the same cannot be made reason for imposing penalty as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., 322 ITR 158. Accordingly, we do not find any merit for imposition of penalty 3 ITA No.6465/M/12 with regard to disallowance of claim of interest while computing income from house property. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30/10/2015. आदेश की घोषणा खुरे न्मामारम भें ददनािंकः 30/10/2015 को की गई ।
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026