Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 977 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 977 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - borrowing/advances towards ancestral share in the property not proved - Tribunal confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting penalty - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal by the impugned order have accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee. Consequently holding that inability to prove a liability would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for the purpose of imposing p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sulted in the Assessee being paid ₹ 92.00 lakhs. Thus, there is no reason shown to us to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal . No substantial question of law - Decided against revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 53 of 2014 - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - F. M. Reis And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Asha A Desia, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Priyanka Kamat, Adv. ORDER This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 196 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rds ancestral share in the property at ₹ 58,87,435/- and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could produce the details only to the extent to ₹ 9,07,738/- and balance borrowing/advances amounting to ₹ 49,79,696/- could not be proved? B. Whether the Tribunal was right in endorsing the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) when the assessee disclosed before the Ld. CIT(A) that the income of ₹ 49,79,696/- was commission received is to be shared .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pondent-Assessee had shown borrowings/advances towards ancestral share in property at ₹ 58.87 lakhs. The Assessee was able to prove the genuineness of this borrowing/advances to the extent of ₹ 9.7 lakhs. Thus the remaining amount of ₹ 49.79 lakhs was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. However, in view of Section 5A of the Act an amount of ₹ 24.89 lakhs was added to the respondent's declared income arriving to the aggregate income of ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/11/2012 the Assessing Officer held that the Assessee had not disclosed the true and correct income in its return of income, thus became liable for penalty. Consequently as the tax sought to be evaded was ₹ 16.73 lakhs, minimum penalty at 100% of the tax evaded i.e. ₹ 16.73 lakhs was imposed upon the respondent-Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal, the respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sh credited to the account of the appellant and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was set aside by order dated 24/09/2013. 7. On further appeal by the respondent-Assessee the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27/01/2014 upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The impugned order also accepts the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee and thus held no penalty is imposable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Besides upholding the finding of the Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version