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

2015 (7) TMI 409 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 409 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - [2016] 380 ITR 222 - Levy of penalty on addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of TDS on payment for technical services received from singapore - Penalty for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Held that:- It is well settled principle that penalty proceedings are quite different from the assessment proceedings. It is by now well settled that levy of penalty is not automatic if the addit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

genuine confusion on the question as to whether the payment made to a foreign party was liable for levying tax in India or not.

The Chartered Accountant has given a certificate to the effect that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source while making the payment to M/s. Filtrex Holding Pte. Ltd., Singapore. Thus, the assessee acted on the basis of the certificate issued by the expert.The assessee has filed Form 3CD along with the return of income in which the Chartered Acco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d questioning the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA.No.1628/Bang/2012, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The respondent-assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of carbon blocks used in water purifying filters at residential buildings. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring the income at ₹ 40,22,030/-. However, the total income determined by the concerned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s), Bangalore by the order dated 28.4.2008. However, disallowance of ₹ 79,98,870/- was sustained by the erstwhile Commissioner. The Assessing Officer treated the sum of ₹ 79,98,870/- both as concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the respondent-assessee and therefore initiated proceedings for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. After hearing, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 26,92,419/- being the penalty attributabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

contending that it involved substantial question of law and same has to be adjudicated. 3. By the impugned orders, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, have concluded that the assessee- respondent herein has not indulged in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; the assessee-respondent herein has made payments to three different foreign parties out of which two payments were held not liable for deduction of tax; it is only the payme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The question as to whether disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 79,98,870/- would amount to concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? The very question was decided in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 5. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders inasmuch as 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

hat there is no material available on record to arrive at a conclusion that conditions laid down in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are satisfied for levying penalty. It is well settled principle that penalty proceedings are quite different from the assessment proceedings. It is by now well settled that levy of penalty is not automatic if the addition/disallowance is sustained by the appellate authorities. The ingredients of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are to be satisfied for levying the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that disallowance as made by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the appellate authorities. However, the respondent-assessee has filed detailed statement, explaining as to why it is not liable to be imposed with penalty. After hearing the assessee and after considering the material on record, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently concluded that it is difficult to say that the respondent has either concealed the income or furnished inacc .....

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