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.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the underlying quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases represented only an estimated profit element and not a definite, proved concealment. The ITAT deleted the penalty for Assessment Year 2010-2011 on the ground that estimated additions alone do not justify penalty. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the appellate order sustaining penalty was set aside because the assessee's submissions had not been considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity and addressing the material placed on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.