“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,699 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Aniruddha N. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 3924/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

interest under Section 234B/234C of the Act is disposed off as being consequential while Ground No. 6 pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is disposed off as being premature. 21. In result, appeal filed by the Assessee (i.e. ITA No. 3924/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year

Anjali A. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3917/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. 53. In ground No. 19 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are of the considered view that as the aforesaid ground of appeal is premature, therefore, the same merits

Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. (Judicial Managers Appointed), Mumbai vs. Asst Clt (It) Cirlce- 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7847/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jigar VoraFor Respondent: Shri Somendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

under Section 234B of the Act is disposed of as being consequential in nature. 17. Ground No. 6 pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is disposed of as being premature in nature. 18. In view of the above, the present appeal preferred

Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 7205/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

made on merits. 9. Identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by holding that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of quantum addition made on the basis of estimation and guess work by the AO, penalty ... assessment @ 20.08%. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in identical facts and circumstances decided the identical issue i.e. to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of quantum addition made on the basis of estimation and guess work

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

itself is bad in law. Rs.9,62,91,447/- 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment year is opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice and accordingly he ought ... learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there being no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unwarranted. 6. Rs.9,62,91,447/- The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessing authority having failed

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

made in the hands of assessee on account of bogus purchase merely on estimations. It is an accepted legal position that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied where additions are made on estimate. [Re: CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Re-trading & Rubber Industries

Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7548/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel Ito Ward-4 401, Chandan Residency Panvel Raigad Plot No.33, Sector 44A, Vs. Nerul West, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 706 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Acppt6011K Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

appeal before the ITAT same was considered as long term capital gain. On this sum along with bank interest penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. There is no satisfaction in the assessment order but merely a direction to issue notice under Section 274 read with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

been held that (i) merely because the assessee claimed deduction of interest expenditure which has not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted; (l) mere making of the claim which is not sustainable will not amount to furnishing TEA (377) Taccurate particulars regarding

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6062/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

News Network Pvt. Ltd. contended inter alia that when addition has been made under section 115JB of the Act no levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted as per circular 25/2015 issued by CBDT and relied upon the order passed ... income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB of the Act, then penalty under section 271 (1)( c) of the Act could not be imposed with reference to additions/ disallowances made under normal provisions The judgment has attained finality

Superflo Filter Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi

ITA 1588/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) National Faceless Superflo Filters Pvt. Assessment Centre, Ltd. Delhi B-5/103-104 Greenland बनाम/ Co-Op. Society, Vs. Shrinivas Bagarka Road, J. B. Nagar Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs4955N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. Singh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 23.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 31.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U. Singh, Ld. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

estimated to be embedded therein. Learned CIT(A) took note of this fact, and of various coordinate bench decisions holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in the cases of additions on estimated basis, as in this case. He thus deleted the impugned penalty ... bogus purchases. It is by now consistent stand of the coordinate benches that in the cases of such additions on estimated basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. In the case of Chempure Vs ITO [(2010) 40 SOT 164 (Mum)], a coordinate bench, dealing with a materially

Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, The Deputy Srinagar Colony, Commissioner Of Near Arunodhaya Income Tax, Hospital, Central Circle – 1[3], Siriguppa Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bellary. Pan: Afbpr9736C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 19/01/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As Levying Penalty U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Penalty Passed U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Rws 271 Of The Act Is Not Discernable Whether The Penalty Proceedings Are Initiated For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Concealment Of Income Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty should be imposed / cannot be imposed. “63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

furnishing wrong particulars of income’ - Held, yes - Whether assessee had concealed particulars of its income and was liable to be visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes 10 ITA No. 285/Mum/2022-Hemal Maganlal Shah [2005] 97 ITD 595 (ASR.) Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills v. Income-tax Officer, Ward ... rebut material/evidence collected by Assessing Officer - Whether on facts, Assessing Officer was justified in drawing adverse inference against assessee and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [2010] 1 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala) Kalpaka Bazar v. Commissioner of Income tax,* Cochin Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1240/मुं/2022 ("न. व .2007-08) Dcit, Central Circle 1(2),Mumbai Room No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annexe Building, Pratishtha Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, 15A, J Mehta Road, Next To Khatau, Condominium, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400 006. Pan: Aadpp-0814-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 271(1)(c)

against deleting of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Undisputedly, the Tribunal has deleted the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. Once the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded the penalty does not survive. We find

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Recovering interest under section 244A. 20. recovering interest of Rs.62,307 granted under section 244A of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c). 11 ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Mahindra Homes Private Limited, Mumbai. 21. initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 441/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Further declining the contentions raised by the assessee on levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.10,89,000/-, Rs.22,86,800/- & Rs.17 ... remaining additions assessee has paid tax prior to filing of revised return, no case is made out for levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. So finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. ITA Nos.438

Dy.CIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 440/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 438/MUM/2022[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not M/s Anik Industires ... which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted

ITO 27(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Padma Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalito 27(2)(1) Vs. M/S Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifp9236D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 271(1)(c)

such purchases. (ii) On the fact and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where there is disallowance on the basis of estimation without appreciating the fact that the Assessing