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

2015 (9) TMI 1058 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 1058 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Admission of additional evidence - non disclosure of sale of the joint family property in the return of income - whether the Tribunal was justified in making an allowance for any fresh claim of deduction without the claim being made in the return of income or without filing a revised return of income? - Held that:- Failure to disclose the fact of receipt of capital gains on sale of joint family property in the return of income, was deliberate and mal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filed before the Tribunal has the Revenue even taken up the plea that non disclosure of sale of the joint family property in the return of income by the respondent assessee is malafide and therefore, the respondent - assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 54 and 54EC of the Act.

We find that the question of law as proposed by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the respondent - assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case "Geotez India Ltd." (2006 (3) TMI 7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsider such a claim. Thus no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1736 of 2013 - Dated:- 9-9-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kotangale with Mr. Arun D. Nagarjun with Ms. Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar ORDER 1. This appeal challenges the order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in respect of Assessment Year 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me for the subject Assessment Year declaring the income of ₹ 2.51 lakhs. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that there was sale of joint family property which resulted in respondent assessee receiving ₹ 50 lakhs which had not been disclosed in the return of income, when confronted with the same, the respondent assessee pointed that he has made necessary investment under Sections 54 and 54EC of the Act & therefore, he was entitled to deduc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e respondent - assessee that in principle, if the amount of capital gains has been invested in terms of Sections 54 and 54EC of the Act, then the benefit of the deduction be extended to the respondent - assessee. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of deduction as claimed by the respondent assessee in the context of specified assets within time. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the finding of 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

appeal of the respondent - assessee. 6. Mr.Kotangale, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges that as the respondent had not made claim for deduction under Section 54 and 54EC of the Act either in his return of income or by filing revised return of income, the respondentassessee is not entitled to the benefit of the same. In support reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Goetze (India) Ltd." (supra) Mr.Kotangale further submits that the claim made by 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

with the claim of deduction which did not find place either in the return of income or in the revised return of income filed before the Assessing Officer, yet it would not fetter the powers of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to consider such a claim. The Apex Court in Geotez India Ltd. (supra) made a reference to its decision in the case "National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, (229 ITR 283)" wherein the claim for dedu .....

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