Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2005 (10) TMI 496 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Assessee not liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to fraud. The Tribunal held that the assessee did not conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, acting in good faith and falling victim to fraud by BSAL. ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Assessee not liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to fraud.

                          The Tribunal held that the assessee did not conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, acting in good faith and falling victim to fraud by BSAL. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was deemed inapplicable, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal and the deletion of the imposed penalty.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
                          2. Disallowance of depreciation on SGCI rolls leased to Bellary Steel and Alloys Ltd. (BSAL).
                          3. Genuineness of the lease transaction.
                          4. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings.
                          5. Applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).
                          6. Bona fide belief and conduct of the assessee.
                          7. Quantum of penalty.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
                          The primary issue in this appeal is the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the disallowance of depreciation on SGCI rolls leased to BSAL. The Assessing Officer concluded that the lease transaction was bogus and aimed at claiming depreciation on non-existent assets, thus attracting penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

                          2. Disallowance of Depreciation:
                          The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on SGCI rolls leased to BSAL. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, concluding that the lease transaction was a sham. This conclusion was based on various findings during a survey and subsequent enquiries, including the non-existence of the assets, lack of stock registers, and the inability of the supplier (BMSL) to produce relevant records.

                          3. Genuineness of the Lease Transaction:
                          The Assessing Officer's findings indicated that the lease transaction was not genuine. The supplier, BMSL, was found to be a non-entity with no manufacturing capacity, and the transporter denied transporting the rolls. The lessee, BSAL, could not account for the rolls, and the entire transaction appeared to be orchestrated to claim depreciation benefits.

                          4. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer:
                          The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction for the levy of penalty, a condition precedent for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had discussed the issue at length and initiated penalty proceedings during the assessment, indicating satisfaction.

                          5. Applicability of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c):
                          Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) provides that if a person offers an explanation that is found to be false or fails to substantiate it, penalty is leviable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered an explanation and substantiated it with documents, proving the bona fide nature of the transaction. Therefore, Explanation 1 was not applicable in this case.

                          6. Bona Fide Belief and Conduct of the Assessee:
                          The Tribunal emphasized the assessee's bona fide belief in the genuineness of the transaction at the time of filing the return. The assessee had relied on documents provided by BSAL and the credibility vouched by Kotak Mahindra. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was a victim of fraud by BSAL and had no reason to doubt the transaction's genuineness initially.

                          7. Quantum of Penalty:
                          The Tribunal noted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be levied on the amount of tax sought to be evaded. However, since the Tribunal held that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was not leviable. The Tribunal also discussed the quantum of penalty, stating that if it were leviable, it should be based on the net amount after considering lease rent offered as income.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal held that the assessee neither concealed particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. The assessee's conduct was bona fide, and it was a victim of fraud by BSAL. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not attracted, and the appeal was partly allowed, deleting the penalty levied.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found