Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Versus M/s. Estate Enterprises

Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by making inadmissible claim on account of interest paid to foreign party - Tribunal deleted the penalty - Held that:- It is a settled position in law that mere disallowance in quantum proceedings would not ipso facto lead to imposition of penalty. The tests to be applied in imposing penalty are different and distinct from the tests to be applied in disallowing an expenditure in quantum proceedings. In the present case, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orrect or false, penalty cannot be imposed. A mere making of an claim not sustainable in law, would not invite penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by making inadmissible claim on account of compensation paid - non deduction of TDS - Tribunal deleted the penalty - Held that:- Tribunal records the fact that due to the negotiation with the Shahs, the amount of compensation was reduced from ₹ 64.72 lakhs to ₹ 45 lakhs and the R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpensation was payable, as it was still under negotiation. It was only on the amount of compensation payable being determined and paid that tax was deducted. The decision of the Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products (supra) which Mr. Mohanty, sought to distinguish would continue to apply as the distinctions made do not touch the aspect with which we are concerned viz. Is penalty imposable if particulars are disclosed but the claim is disallowed. In such a case the Apex Court has held that penalt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. N C Mohanty and Ms. Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Mr. Niraj Seth with B G Yewale i/b. Rajesh Shah ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 8th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Although multiple questions have been raised in the memo of appeal, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for Revenue presses only the following questi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by making inadmissible claim of ₹ 64,74,300/ - on account of compensation paid? 3. Regarding Question (a): - (a) The Respondent-Assessee had debited the interest payment of ₹ 64.02 lakhs on an External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) loan taken from are Eyleen Financial Corporation in United Kingdom. However, the Respondent-Assessee did not deduct the tax at source on the interest. During the assessment proceeding, the aforesaid expenditure wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ake the payment, was still awaited. Thus, no sooner the permission of RBI was obtained for remitting the amount, the TDS was deducted. This was particularly so as the payment of interest was subject to approval of RBI. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and imposed a penalty upon the Respondent-Assessee essentially on the ground that the appeal of the Respondent-Assessee in quantum proceedings had been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]; (c) On appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

part of the Respondent-Assessee that it was not required to deduct tax on such uncertain liability. This after having made full disclosure. In any case, tax had been deducted and deposited on obtaining permission from the RBI to remit the amount of interest to the lender in U.K. Thus, holding no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposable upon the Respondent-Assessee; (d) On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the CIT(A). The impugned order of the Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt of legal provisions namely - Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act disallow an expenditure on account of nondeduction of tax would not lead to the conclusions that the expenses are not genuine. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed; (e) Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue challenges the finding of the Tribunal in penalty proceedings by placing reliance upon the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. It is submitted that in view 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

to imposition of penalty. The tests to be applied in imposing penalty are different and distinct from the tests to be applied in disallowing an expenditure in quantum proceedings. Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act provides that where an Assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income but if the explanation offered for the same is found to be satisfactory, then no penalty is imposed upon the party. In the present case, Respondent-Assessee has ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A mere making of an claim not sustainable in law, would not invite penalty. In this case, there is a concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the claim made by the Respondent-Assessee was bona fide. This finding is not shown to be perverse and/or arbitrary. Therefore, Question (a) as proposed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain Question (a). 4 Regarding Question (b): - (a) The Respondent-Assessee had entered int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to deduct tax under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. This, disallowance of ₹ 64.72 lakh was upheld by the Tribunal and accepted by the Respondent-Assessee; (b) In penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not accept the Respondent-Assessee's explanation. In particular, its submission that no inaccurate particulars had been filed and they had made a bona fide claim, was not accepted. Besides, it imposed penalty upon the Respondent-Assessee on the ground that in quantum proceedings, ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovided for in it accounts, it could not be claimed as expenditure. In the above facts, penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was upheld; (d) On further Appeal, the Tribunal in the impugned order records that the reason for imposing penalty by the Assessing Officer was the disallowances made in the quantum proceeding for failure to deduct TDS. Although, the expenditure claimed has not been held to be false or bogus. It is further recorded that in the subsequent year, the TDS has been deducted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the TDS, appears to be bona fide. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal records that no penalty is imposable; (e) Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant point outs that the penalty in this case ought not to have been disturbed by the Tribunal. This is because, two authorities under the Act imposed penalty upon the Respondent-Assessee. It is submitted that the decision in Reliance Petro Products (supra) would have no application to the present case. In particular, he i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed a penalty on the basis that in quantum proceeding, the expenditure has been disallowed in view of the failure to deduct the tax under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. In Appeal, the CIT(A) held the Respondent-Assessee liable to pay penalty not only on the ground of failure to deduct tax with regard to expenditure of ₹ 64.74 lakhs claimed but also on the ground that the expenditure claimed in terms of contract, was premature i.e. payment of compensation was payable to the Shahs at the time o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer



|| 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