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

2015 (8) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) - assessee, while computing capital gains, has failed to take into account the value of the property as per stamp duty value, as required u/s. 50C - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy as confirmed by ITAT - Held that:- We find that in the present case, the Respondent-Assessee has made a complete disclosure inasmuch as the higher stamp duty valuation was indicated in the agreement filed along with the Return of Income. Thus, it is not a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1719 of 2013 - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And N. M. Jamdar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Suresh Kumar For the Respondents : Mr Niraj Sheth with Mr Poojari i/b Mint & Confreres ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 20th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. By the impugned order, the Tribunal upheld 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

see, while computing capital gains, has failed to take into account the value of the property as per stamp duty value, as required u/s. 50C of the I. T. Act, 1961?" 3. The Respondent-Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year declaring a loss of ₹ 1.38 Crores. In its return of income, the Respondent claimed the sale consideration on sale of factory, building and land at Kalol for ₹ 1.55 Crores as reflected in the agreement. The Assessing Officer did not accept the 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

d be covered by Section 50 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation offered and held that the Respondent had filed return of income with inaccurate particulars, thus warranting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, inter alia, holding that all particulars with regard to the sale of the property at Kalol were furnished along with return of income including the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch was filed along with return of income. Thus, there was a complete disclosure of income and there were no inaccurate particulars filed so as to attract under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Thus, following the decision of the Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products (supra), the impugned order upheld the order of the CIT(A), deleting the penalty. 6. The grievance of the Revenue is that the RespondentAssessee had in respect of the another property at Pune sold during the subject Assessment Year, ha .....

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