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 →

M/s Hungry Jacks Fast Food Pvt Ltd., M/s Natvarlal Vepari & Co. Versus Income-tax Officer-5 (1) (4) , Mumbai

2015 (10) TMI 1475 - ITAT MUMBAI

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Undoubtedly, it is not the case of either any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As we see, it is not the case of any revenue loss either.

When we look at the decision of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] the hon'ble Supreme Court has very categorically held that penalty cannot be visited if the details and particulars had been placed on record. We find that the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. : 2335/Mum/2012 - Dated:- 4-3-2015 - SHRI R.C. SHARMA AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JJ. For the Appellant : Dr K Shivaram, Ms. Neelam Jadhav For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Kumar ORDER Vivek Varma (Judicial Member).- The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 9, Mumbai, dated February 14, 2012 sustaining the levy of penalty of ₹ 9,10,000 by the Assessing Officer. 2. The facts are that the assessee ente .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dishonored cheque, but the suit is lying pending, because notice could not be served on Mr. R. T. Sekar, as he had left the country. 3. In this factual scenario, the assessee claimed this amount as bad debt. 4. The Assessing Officer while examining the issue, held the same to be a capital loss and therefore denied the claim of bad debt. 5. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held it to be business loss but did not allow the clai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee was not acceptable as bona fide, as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed the penalty at ₹ 9,10,000 and levied the same on the assessee. 7. In the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee reiterated the facts of the case, as to how the sum of ₹ 27,00,00 is irrecoverable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer, levying the penalty, relying on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

revenue. The authorised representative submitted that the only difference between the assessee and the Revenue officers is that there is a difference of interpretation. The authorised representative, therefore, submitted that since there was neither any attempt to provide inaccurate particulars of income concealment, and the issue has been blown only on the basis of interpretation, neither the penalty becomes exigible legally, nor the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (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

 

 

 

 

 

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