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

2015 (10) TMI 1475 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (10) TMI 1475 - ITAT MUMBAI - [2015] 40 ITR (Trib) 607 (ITAT [Mum]) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty. - Decided 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 ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on behalf of RRPL bounced. The assessee filed recovery suit on account of 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs under section 271(1)(c) on this issue, as the explanation offered by the 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) susta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ccurate particulars of income by the assessee, nor is there any loss to the 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 le .....

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