Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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 :

        📋
        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

        <h1>ITAT deletes penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB on estimate-based additions for bogus purchases</h1> ITAT Mumbai deleted penalties u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB imposed on assessee for alleged bogus purchases and labour payments. The AO made additions under ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and u/s. 271AAB of the Act - order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C passed making addition on account of cash expenses on account of bogus purchases expenditure u/s. 69C and bogus labour payment u/s. 69C - HELD THAT:- Irresponsible noting by ld. Assessing Officer despite having findings of the Coordinate Bench on the quantum additions on record, reflects absence of fundamental understanding of judicial discipline, while taking up penalty proceedings. The table produced in impugned penalty order, for all the additions made by the ld. AO have been either reduced to a lower percentage from the percentage at which the addition was made or have been deleted in toto. As in the case of addition for cash expenses on account of “site expenses”, AO made the addition by applying 50% of the expenses which was reduced by CIT(A) to 35% and was subsequently reduced to 20% by the Coordinate Bench. Similar is the case for other expenses and payments for which additions have been made. Even the first appellate authority, despite taking record of partial relief to the assessee in terms of the findings as stated above has observed that there appears to be a malafide intention of the assessee and “mens rea” is present in the case. He concluded to uphold the penalty so imposed on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. As noted both by AO and CIT(A), tabulated above that additions sustained are purely on estimate basis. The issue before us is no longer res integra and it is a settled law that in the said factual position, penalty is not imposable on additions sustained on estimate basis. It is an accepted fact that whenever an addition is made on the basis of estimate, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) is deleted. Penalty as imposed u/s. 271AAB also deleted as same observations above - Appeal decided in favour of assessee. The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income-tax Act are justified for inaccurate particulars of income.2. Whether additions made on an estimate basis are subject to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.The detailed analysis of the issues is as follows:Issue 1:Relevant legal framework and precedents:- The penalties were imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income-tax Act.- The Coordinate Bench of ITAT had granted partial relief to the assessee in the quantum proceedings.Court's interpretation and reasoning:- The Tribunal considered the common issue of penalty levied on matters previously decided by the Coordinate Bench.- The Tribunal noted that the penalties were imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.- The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for disregarding the findings of the Coordinate Bench and for lacking judicial discipline in imposing penalties.Key evidence and findings:- The additions made by the Assessing Officer were reduced by the CIT(A) and further by the Coordinate Bench.- The Tribunal observed that the sustained additions were based on estimates.Application of law to facts:- The Tribunal held that penalties are not imposable on additions sustained on an estimate basis.- It emphasized that penalties under section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when additions are made on an estimate basis.Treatment of competing arguments:- The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) argued for upholding the penalties due to alleged malafide intention and presence of 'mens rea.'- The assessee argued that penalties should not be imposed on estimate-based additions.Conclusions:- The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB for inaccurate particulars of income.- The Tribunal held that penalties are not justified for additions made on an estimate basis.Significant holdings:- The Tribunal established the principle that penalties are not imposable on additions sustained on an estimate basis.- Final determinations on each issue were in favor of the assessee, leading to the deletion of the penalties imposed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the inappropriateness of imposing penalties for estimate-based additions and highlighted the importance of judicial discipline in penalty proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties was based on the legal principle that penalties under the Income-tax Act should not be levied on additions made on an estimate basis.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found