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

2015 (10) TMI 1481 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 1481 - ITAT DELHI - [2015] 39 ITR (Trib) 646 (ITAT [Del]) - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - claim for deduction of various expenses, etc., in the computation of income under the head "Income from house property" - Held that:- Here is a case in which the assessee earned rental income to the tune of ₹ 84 lakhs on which it claimed deduction under section 24(i) for a sum of ₹ 18.75 lakhs. Despite that, it further claimed deduction for various expenses and allowance in res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see, within its ambit. As the assessee knowingly made a wrong claim which is patently inadmissible, we cannot, but, uphold penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Our view is fortified by a recent judgment from the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. NG Technologies Ltd. [2014 (12) TMI 481 - DELHI HIGH COURT), in which the assessee claimed deduction for loss on sale of fixed assets in its profit and loss account. The hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the penalty in respect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. GARG, JJ. For the Respondent : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR ORDER R. S. Syal (Accountant Member).- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on February 7, 2008 upholding the penalty of ₹ 17,49,622 imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called "the Act") in relation to the assessment year 2001-02. 2. Before proceeding with the matter, we want to set ou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2014, the hon'ble Delhi High Court vacated the view of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty on the basis of lack of proper satisfaction. Accordingly, the matter has been remanded for deciding penalty on merits. 3. We have heard the learned Departmental representative and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 4. Briefly stated, the facts 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

g Officer held that such expenses were not separately allowable as deduction because the same were covered under the composite deduction allowable under the head "Income from house property". He, therefore, computed the total income by assessing the rental income under the head "Income from house property" as was declared by the assessee without allowing any separate deduction for the expenses which were claimed by the assessee. Penalty amounting to ₹ 17,49,622 was impo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vailable on record. It can be seen from the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings that the assessee's contention for assessing rental income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" has been rejected and, resultantly, claim for depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,83,951, building maintenance expenses of ₹ 22,15,072 and commission paid for letting out building at ₹ 5,39,000 has been rejected. The assessee's further claim for deductio .....

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