https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236223 The Tribunal allowed both appeals, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The Tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified as the appellant had disclosed details related to the claim under section 44-AB and that the penalty notice was vague and ambiguous. The disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was reduced based on estimation, with the Tribunal emphasizing that penalties based on estimation may not be justified. The Tribunal concluded that none of the judicial pronouncements cited by the Revenue supported the penalty imposition, leading to the deletion of the penalty in this case. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236223 The Tribunal allowed both appeals, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The Tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified as the appellant had disclosed details related to the claim under section 44-AB and that the penalty notice was vague and ambiguous. The disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was reduced based on estimation, with the Tribunal emphasizing that penalties based on estimation may not be justified. The Tribunal concluded that none of the judicial pronouncements cited by the Revenue supported the penalty imposition, leading to the deletion of the penalty in this case. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236223