Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

In the case of 2024 (5) TMI 1132 before the ITAT Mumbai, the ...

ITAT Mumbai upheld the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases as the Payments were through banking channels.

Case Laws Income Tax

May 24, 2024

In the case of 2024 (5) TMI 1132 before the ITAT Mumbai, the issue pertained to penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) concerning the estimation of income on bogus purchases. The CIT(A) applied a gross profit rate of 10% on the bogus purchases instead of the entire amount added by the assessing officer, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The tribunal held that since the payments for the purchases were evidenced in the books and through banking channels, with corresponding utilization in the manufacturing account accepted, the entire purchases could not have been added u/s. 69C. The decision was in line with precedents such as PCIT vs. Jagdish Thakkar and PCIT vs. S V Jiwani. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as there was no concealment of income based on the estimated profit rate of 10%. The penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

View Source

← Previous Next →

In the case of 2024 (5) TMI 1132 before the ITAT Mumbai, the ...

ITAT Mumbai upheld the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases as the Payments were through banking channels.

Case Laws Income Tax

May 24, 2024

You may also like:

The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an...

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bogus purchases by applying the profit rate - Once there is no reason to disbelieve the sales made by the assessee and...

Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income - bogus purchases - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimate basis - AT

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notice issued under Section 142(1) - if the assessee really had no connection with the Swiss Bank accounts,...

Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus claim of deduction under Section 35CCA - penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed - HC

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleted the penalty - Additions u/s 41(1) - one time settlement with the SBI - Bank has waived a sum including interest - assessee...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

Quick Updates: