The ITAT Mumbai, in a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for ...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied on estimated disallowance of bogus purchases.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 1, 2024

The ITAT Mumbai, in a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases, held that when additions are based on estimation, no penalty can be imposed. The CIT(A) had limited the disallowance to 17.5%, which was further reduced to 8% by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that adhoc disallowance of purchases does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on facts, circumstances, and legal precedents.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT Mumbai, in a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for ...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied on estimated disallowance of bogus purchases.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 1, 2024

You may also like:

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...

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...

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

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 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....

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition of bogus purchases - Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases - since income has been estimated by applying a...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) involved an addition based on estimation by the Assessing Officer, which was later re-estimated by the CIT(A) to disallow 10% of the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Estimation of income on bogus purchases - Once the quantitative details of purchases and the corresponding quantitative sales have not been...

Penalty levied u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAA for unexplained investment and addition made by adopting net profit as per the books of accounts at 12.85% on the suppressed...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 43B as well as disallowance export product development expenses - Just because the assessee...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - bogus purchase made from hawala dealers - mere disallowance of purchases on adhoc basis does not tantamount to willful furnishing...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Once, all the documentary evidences were produced before the AO and sales are no doubted, it is doubtful, whether the purchases are bogus...

The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale...

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) - bogus purchases @ 25% on total purchase - After analyzing the order of the A.O. as well as the ld. CIT(A), we also found that both the lower...

Quick Updates: