TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT] wherein it has been held that when taxable income is computed on book profits under Section 115JB and not under the normal provisions, Explanation (4) has to be accordingly applied. In view of the said Explanation, the additions made by the Assessing Officer under the normal provisions are totally irrelevant - Thus, there cannot be imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was assessed and had paid tax under MAT provisions? 3. As is apparent from the question itself, income of the appellant-assessee has been assessed under Section 115JB of the Act. As per the income tax return filed on 31st October, 2005, the appellant-assessee had suffered loss of Rs.12.28 crores under the normal provisions. The Assessing Officer while examining the profit and loss account and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and imposed penalty of Rs.24,94,596/-. While calculating the penalty, the Assessing Officer records that the returned income was at loss of Rs.12,27,93,403/- and the assessed income was at the positive figure of Rs.14,47,91,067/-. The amount in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished was taken at Rs.50,98,500/- plus foreign commission of Rs.18,89,158/- (addition towards foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entry donation in the heading administrative expenses . There was no concealment. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the said penalty and by the impugned order penalty imposed has been sustained by the tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Price Water House Coopers Private Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 348 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
