<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustainable due to defective notice &amp; estimation of income.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78040</link>
    <description>The ITAT Surat held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to a defective notice and estimation of income on bogus purchases. The notice u/s 274 was issued mechanically without specifying whether the penalty was for &#039;Concealment of income&#039; or &#039;furnishing inaccurate particulars of income&#039;. The additions were based on estimation without a definite finding on the quantum of concealment, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Legal precedent from the jurisdictional High Court supported this decision, citing cases such as CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co., Navjivan Oil Mills, and Valimkbhai H. Patel. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deemed not sustainable in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:44:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:44:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustainable due to defective notice &amp; estimation of income.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78040</link>
      <description>The ITAT Surat held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to a defective notice and estimation of income on bogus purchases. The notice u/s 274 was issued mechanically without specifying whether the penalty was for &#039;Concealment of income&#039; or &#039;furnishing inaccurate particulars of income&#039;. The additions were based on estimation without a definite finding on the quantum of concealment, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Legal precedent from the jurisdictional High Court supported this decision, citing cases such as CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co., Navjivan Oil Mills, and Valimkbhai H. Patel. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deemed not sustainable in this case.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:44:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>