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 →

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad

2015 (9) TMI 849 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleted penalty - Held that:- It is evident that the factum of deletion of addition in respect of non-deduction of tax by the assessee was not controverted by the revenue. The Tribunal has further found that the penalty had been levied on the amount which was reflected in the original return as income. That it was an undisputed fact that the assessee had declared this income in his original return of income, although it was a belated return.

From the findi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 445 of 2015 - Dated:- 7-9-2015 - Harsha Devani And A. G. Uraizee, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Mauna M Bhatt, Adv For the Respondent : None ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

b-section (3) of section 143 of the Act came to be framed by an order dated 6th December, 2008 whereby the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and additions. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and by order dated 17th March, 2011, imposed penalty of ₹ 2,81,24,512/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. The Revenue went in appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he period prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. Moreover, the assessee had filed the return of income consequent to the survey under section 133A of the Act and hence, had furnished inaccurate particulars of income of ₹ 7,93,34,193/- by non-compliance of filing Form 15I and 15J to the Commissioner of Income Tax, thereby defeating the purpose of rule 29D. It was accordingly urged that the appeal requires consideration and the question as proposed or as may be deemed fi .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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