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

2015 (7) TMI 744 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 744 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) invoking Section 273B - assessee having incorrectly claimed the benefit of Section 80IB(10)- Tribunal canceling the penalty - Held that:- The grievance of the revenue is that the respondent-assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Wings A to D. There is no dispute with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the revised return was filed only afte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of Section 80IB of the Act was withdrawn.

In these circumstances, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal on the facts before it was a very possible view. Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1714 of 2013 - Dated:- 7-7-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And N. M. Jamdar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr P C Chhotaray, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr B V Jhaveri, Adv. ORDER P.C. This appeal by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O. when the revised return was filed after the survey was done. (ii) Whether the Tribunal has rightly held that the revised return filed by the Assessee in the present case is voluntarily even though it is filed after survey report." 4. The respondent-assessee had filed return of income claiming benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of its building project called New Haridas Park bearing Wing A to D. Thereafter there was a survey conducted on the appellant's .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct for having furnished inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order concluded that there was a basis for the respondent-assessee to claim that Wings A to D constructed by it would be a separate project from the original project of "Haridas Park" consisting of Wings E to G. The second phase required extensive modification of the plan. It was for these considera .....

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