Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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 :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        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

        Tribunal confirms penalties for inaccurate income particulars

        J.M. Baxi & Co. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -39

        J.M. Baxi & Co. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -39 - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
        2. Whether the levy of penalty for disallowance of sundry expenses amounts to concealment of particulars or filing of inaccurate particulars.
        3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. regarding incorrect claims not amounting to concealment.
        4. Consideration of penalties on estimated disallowances.
        5. Consistency in penalty proceedings for subsequent assessment years.

        Summary:

        Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
        The assessee-company challenged the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,70,984/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee had submitted inaccurate particulars of income by claiming illegal payments as sundry expenses, which were not allowable u/s 37 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty was justified as the assessee's claim was not bona fide and was made to reduce taxable income and payable tax.

        Issue 2: Disallowance of Sundry Expenses
        The assessee argued that the disallowance of a particular claim does not amount to concealment of particulars or filing of inaccurate particulars. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had debited expenses relating to illegal payments to Dock workers, Union Leaders, and Government Employees, which were not allowable as per the explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had deliberately debited these expenses to the P & L Account, resulting in inaccurate particulars of income.

        Issue 3: Applicability of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.
        The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., arguing that an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of particulars. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from Reliance Petroproducts, noting that in the latter, there was no finding of incorrect or false details supplied by the assessee. In contrast, the present case involved a clear finding of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

        Issue 4: Penalties on Estimated Disallowances
        The assessee contended that penalties should not be levied on estimated disallowances. The Tribunal, however, maintained that the reduction of disallowance to 25% did not negate the blameworthiness of the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the disallowance related to payments prohibited by the explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, and such payments were not allowable from the moment they were made.

        Issue 5: Consistency in Penalty Proceedings
        The assessee argued that in subsequent assessment years, the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings despite making similar additions. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that each assessment year is separate, and the facts and circumstances of each year must be considered independently.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1998-99, 2002-03, and 2003-04, upholding the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed for all three assessment years.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found