The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty ...

No penalty for estimated expense disallowance, rules ITAT.

Case Laws Income Tax

September 12, 2024

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. The ITAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., which stated that merely making an unsustainable claim, without any inaccuracy in furnishing particulars of income, does not attract penalty. The ITAT cited various High Court decisions, including CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co., Naranbhai Veerabhai and Co., and Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., which held that no concealment penalty can be imposed for disallowance of expenses on an estimated basis. Since the major amount was already deleted by the CIT(A)/NFAC, and the only addition was an estimated lump sum addition debited in the Profit and Loss Account, the ITAT opined that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c), allowing the assessee's appeal.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty ...

No penalty for estimated expense disallowance, rules ITAT.

Case Laws Income Tax

September 12, 2024

You may also like:

Mere disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3) would not invite penalty for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee disclosed all particulars...

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...

Disallowance on work penalty expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - Whether the work penalty expenses were actually interest expenses liable to provisions of TDS – Held No - HC

Ad hoc disallowance of 10% of expenses - Since the AO or the Ld. CIT(A) has not rejected the books of account of the assessee they could not have estimated (ad hoc...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the levy of penalty u/s 270A. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and...

Disallowance u/s 14A - expenses towards exempted income - AO could not have straightaway resorted to Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules in order to compute the disallowance u/s 14A - AT

Penalty u/ s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance on account of personnel expenses, operative expenses and finance expenses - it a “mere disallowance” of an expense does not warrant...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Adhoc disallowance of 50% out of miscellaneous expenses was made by the A.O. on estimated basis - said estimate was revised by the CIT(A) to 10%...

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...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of expenses of foreign Travel expenses and inter city travel expenses - Revenue has not rejected the explanation of the...

Disallowance u/s 14A - Disallowing interest expense - Neither the assessee furnished the working of disallowances under section 14A, nor the lower authority made the...

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Adhoc disallowance made on account of expenses under the heard vehicle maintenance, interest on car loan, telephone expenses, travelling expenses and depreciation on car...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deduction claimed u/s 80IA - there being no factual basis for establishing that the expenses needed to be allocated and the expenses so...

Quick Updates: