https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769709 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeals against penalty levy under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The penalty was imposed after disallowing 25% of purchases as bogus and making additions under section 145(3). CIT(A) had inconsistently allowed similar penalty appeal for 2007-08 but confirmed penalties for subsequent years despite identical facts. ITAT held that mere unsustainable claims in returns do not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing Reliance Petroproducts case. The tribunal emphasized the doctrine of binding precedent requiring consistency in judicial decisions and found no evidence of incorrect details in returns, warranting penalty deletion. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:38:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769709 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeals against penalty levy under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The penalty was imposed after disallowing 25% of purchases as bogus and making additions under section 145(3). CIT(A) had inconsistently allowed similar penalty appeal for 2007-08 but confirmed penalties for subsequent years despite identical facts. ITAT held that mere unsustainable claims in returns do not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing Reliance Petroproducts case. The tribunal emphasized the doctrine of binding precedent requiring consistency in judicial decisions and found no evidence of incorrect details in returns, warranting penalty deletion. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769709