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

        <h1>Penalty order overturned by ITAT due to limitation period and estimation issues under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>M/s Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., C/o Mehta Lodha & Co., Versus D.C.I.T, Circle-2 (1) (2), Ahmedabad.</h3> M/s Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., C/o Mehta Lodha & Co., Versus D.C.I.T, Circle-2 (1) (2), Ahmedabad. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is barred by the limitation period as specified under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be levied based on estimation and debatable issues.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation Period for Penalty Order:The first issue for adjudication was whether the penalty order passed by the AO was barred by the limitation period specified under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO passed the penalty order on 20-02-2017, after the judgment by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 26-08-2016. The relevant provisions of Section 275(1)(a) required that the penalty order be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the order of the CIT(A), ITAT, High Court, or Supreme Court is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The ITAT observed that the penalty provisions applicable were those in force during the year under consideration and that the amendment brought by the Amendment Act 2006, which inserted Section 275(1A), could not be applied retrospectively. It was noted that the AO was under the obligation to pass the penalty order after the pronouncement of the ITAT order within the specified time. Since the penalty order was passed after the judgment by the High Court, it was held that the penalty order was barred by the limitation period.2. Penalty Based on Estimation and Debatable Issues:The second issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied based on estimation and debatable issues. The AO imposed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee had concealed income by underreporting production and sales, which was revealed during a search operation. The AO noted that the assessee had accounted for only 1/10th of its actual production/sale and had recorded a higher loss percentage during manufacturing operations, thereby reducing its gross profit (GP). The penalty was levied based on the GP addition confirmed by the High Court at 5% of the estimated sales amounting to Rs. 13,56,750. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, rejecting the assessee's contention that the penalty was based on estimation and a debatable issue. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT v/s Chandravillas Hotel, which allowed penalty imposition based on estimation.The ITAT, however, observed that the addition with respect to suppressed profit was an estimated addition significantly reduced by the Tribunal, indicating a debatable issue. The ITAT noted that the assessee's explanation regarding bogus purchases was accepted by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal, although the Tribunal later restored these additions partly. The fact that the Hon’ble High Court admitted the appeal on these issues suggested that they involved questions of law, further indicating their debatable nature. The ITAT concluded that in such cases, it could not be said that the explanation submitted by the assessee was false or that the assessee had concealed its income. Consequently, the ITAT found that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained merely on the basis of estimation and debatable issues.Conclusion:The ITAT held that the penalty order passed by the AO was barred by the limitation period specified under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the ITAT concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied based on estimation and debatable issues. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order was set aside.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found