-
ITAT Ahmedabad held on 6.1.2020 that the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt as the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only particularly when the purchases have been accepted, then the corresponding sales cannot be disturbed without giving any conclusive evidence/finding. No addition can be made on this ground.
-
ITAT BOMBAY on 13 March, 2020 hold that it is settled position of law that penalty u/s271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases from the Hawala. ITO vs. PREMKUMAR SHEHGAL
-
No Penalty 271(1)(c) ITAT Chandigarh held that since the income has already been declared in the valid revised return (though after service of Summons issued by ADIT (inv.)) filed within the limitation period prescribed for filing the same therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the aforesaid income declared is not leviable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Penalty u/s 271AAC can be levied only when there is an addition or disallowance and which it is deemed that he has evaded the payment of tax for computing the penalty so leviable. Smt. Parkash Kaur, Ludhiana vs ACIT
-
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 18, 2020 held that the assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act is invalid in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search hence the addition made by AO in assessment completed was beyond scope.
-
ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD. vs. ITO
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that In case of bogus bill found where actual purchases were made by cash, method of peak credit as adopted by AO would not be a suitable method rather an adhoc estimated addition would meet cause of justice
-
BANGALORE TRIBUNAL on 4.6.2019 held that 271(1)(c) – non strike of limb in SCN-No penalty can be imposed. DESAI AND COMPANY vs. DCIT
-
Non-striking off of the relevant column of the show cause notice cannot be a valid reason for deletion of the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act if responded and participated in the proceedings. hence, matter was remanded back to CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits. ITO vs. RAJAN KALIMUTHU
-
show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words then that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Ratan Kumar Paul Vs DCIT