Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Income declared and assessed are same u/s 115JB of the Act – Held that:- It is not fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Merely because originally the AO has computed the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of law, is not decisive of the issue - the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 16.6.2011, the AO has computed the income as per the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act - the MAT u/s 115JB was greater than the regular income, book profit was taken as deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on the assessee – Following CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of transportation charges – Held that:- The Managing Director of the assessee-company has admitted that there was no movement of goods, and it has issued accommodation sales bills amounting to ₹ 30.69 crores during the year - the profit of ₹ 36.31 lakhs shown in the audited financial statement by the assessee for the relevant period and the same represents the actual sale of ₹ 28 crores and odd of goods effected by the assessee during the year – assessee could not show that any income on account of bogus claim of transportation charges was included in the figure by the assessee somewhere else in the financial accounts of the assessee – thus, the addition of transportation charges was rightly made by the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Addition made as unsecured loan and interest payable – Held that:- Shri Mahendra Bhansali happens to be the Managing Director of the assessee-company and has confirmed the transaction of advancing money to the assessee - Shri Mahendra Bhansali is an existing Assessee, and has given his PAN and it is not the case of the Revenue that the amount of deposit with the assessee-Company was not reflected in the I.T. records of the creditor - no case of addition could be made out. The assessee has discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor by filing confirmation of Shri Mahendra Bhansali who happens to be Managing Director of the assessee-company, and was an existing I.T.assessee and also given his PAN - no case of addition could be made out - Decided in favour of Assessee. Addition made as share application money – Held that:-The assessee could not prove the genuineness of the deposit of share application money by these five companies at Kalkotta - there is no material to justify the charge of premium on the shares despite the fact that the profit of the assessee-company was negligible - The department was able to establish the discrepancies – Following CIT Vs. N.R.Portfolio P. Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 762 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the addition of ₹ 97 lakhs of share application money is confirmed – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
|