CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110High Court1996#691 most cited

What is CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. · 221 ITR 110 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty on estimated additions · no penalty for estimated income · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · section 274 · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) estimate

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 274Section 148Section 250Section 145(3)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)deletion of penaltysection 271(l)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 620/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…i. CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (2006) 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Prem Dass (No. 2) (2001) 248 ITR 237 (P&H) iii. CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Genning 359 ITR 562 (Kar.) iv. CIT v. Aerotraders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) v. CIT v. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) vi. ACIT v. Shivam Projects 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 8. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to uphold the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 9. We have given our t…

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 619/AHD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…i. CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel (2006) 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) ii. CIT v. Prem Dass (No. 2) (2001) 248 ITR 237 (P&H) iii. CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Genning 359 ITR 562 (Kar.) iv. CIT v. Aerotraders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) v. CIT v. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) vi. ACIT v. Shivam Projects 97 taxmann.com 88 (Surat) 8. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to uphold the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 9. We have given our t…

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4204/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…l held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable. 11. In the result, the impugned order is upheld…

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4203/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…l held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable. 11. In the result, the impugned order is upheld…

ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Rev

ITA 4056/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-13(1)(1), P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., 225, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar Vs. Churchgate, Vishweshwar Nagar Road, Off Mumbai-400020. Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcp 9320 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: 24/09/2024
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ions are made on estimate. [Re: CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Re-trading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580(Raj.), CIT Vs. Subhash trading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580(Raj.), CIT Vs. Subhash trading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580(Raj.), CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H)]. Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H)].” P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd. Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd. 4 4.1 In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the…

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ermined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is estimated disallowance, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.” 8. We therefore respectfull…

Jaipur Gem Crafts, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 327/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 274

…ncome is determined on estimate and similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh vs CIT reported in 258 ITR85 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110. Apart from this, the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Radheshyam vs ITO has held that when the Bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of net profit, the same cannot be sustained. Thus after going through the facts of the present case, I find that the penalty in the present case was imposed as the assessee could not file his rep…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…al held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…al held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1766/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…al held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

Jivanlal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1330/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) has taken a similar view in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. Therefore, it is evident that the issue about, justification of imposition of penalty, where the addition is made on the basis of an estimate is no longer res integra. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, w…

Alpa Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 467/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeealpa Rajesh Desai Vs Ito 19(1)(1), Mumbai 15/32, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chambers, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan : Aelpd3053K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mona SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…l held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable. 11. In the result, the impugned order is upheld…

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4404/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…al held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4403/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…al held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4402/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…al held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

ACIT 32 (1), Mumbai vs. United Insulation, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals field by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1494/MUM/2024(A.Y. : 2010-11) ACIT-32(1),Mumbai 2nd Floor, 241, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai. ---- Appellant Vs. United Insulation, Gala No.2G Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAAFU-0291-K--- Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DR Respondent by : S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah, Chintan Shah & Dhiraj Shah Date of Hearing : 06/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11/06/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACC…

ACIT 32 1, Mumbai vs. United Insulation, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals field by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1492/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1494/MUM/2024(A.Y. : 2010-11) ACIT-32(1),Mumbai 2nd Floor, 241, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai. ---- Appellant Vs. United Insulation, Gala No.2G Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAAFU-0291-K--- Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DR Respondent by : S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah, Chintan Shah & Dhiraj Shah Date of Hearing : 06/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11/06/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACC…

ACIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. United Insulation, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals field by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1431/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1494/MUM/2024(A.Y. : 2010-11) ACIT-32(1),Mumbai 2nd Floor, 241, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai. ---- Appellant Vs. United Insulation, Gala No.2G Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAAFU-0291-K--- Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DR Respondent by : S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah, Chintan Shah & Dhiraj Shah Date of Hearing : 06/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11/06/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACC…

Vijay Padharinath Avhad, Mumbai vs. CIT Ward 3(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2009-10 Vijay Pandharinath Avhad, A-504, Swastik Park, Reti Bunder Road Near, Umeshnagar, Dombivli West – 421 201 Pan: Aftpa-8153-J - Appellant

For Appellant: Shri N.A.KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SR DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…f Mukesh Shaligram Sharda (supra) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 in this regard. 5. In the instant case, the Tribunal has sustained addition relating to alleged bogus purchases on estimate basis. Accordingly, following the above said decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and co-ordinate benches, we hold that the penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on such kind of estimated additions, Accordingly, we…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4367/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…unal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable.” 3. Here in this case, the ld. AO had applied GP…