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 →

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Varun Resorts Ltd.

2015 (10) TMI 1603 - ITAT MUMBAI

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - treatment of transactions in shares and mutual funds - whether assessable under the head 'income from short term capital gains' as declared by the assessee and whether to be assessed under the head 'income from business' - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case relating to assessment year 2006-2007 till last assessment year the assessee was showing income from share business under the head business income, that during the year it had converted its stock in trade in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nnot be held that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. It is said that decision in the assessment proceedings do not result in automatic imposition of penalty. In the matter before us, the assessee had filed all the necessary details before the AO. There was difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO about the treatment to be given to the share transactions undertaken by the assessee. The admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court against the quantum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting to assessment year 2007-2008 against levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing that mere disallowance of a claim would not entail imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Led.CIT(A) erred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring quantum appeal and as subsequently upheld by the ITAT, the share trading business carried on by the assessee till A.Y. 2005-06 remained the same in A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 and therefore, the short term capital gains on share trading business claimed by the assessee was a false claim. c) The Ld.CIT(A) in the order in quantum appeal found that the fact of closing stock of shares of ₹ 3,82,77,523/- as on 31.03.2005 had been concealed by the assessee in its return for A.Y. 2006-07 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case relating to assessment year .....

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. Rejecting the explanation of the assessee, the A.O. assessed the said income under the head 'income from business'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated against the assessee. The AO noted in the order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, that the facts of the case were identical to the facts in assessment year 2006-2007 and following the same, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income at ₹ 71,16,704. 4.1 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

unds whether assessable under the head 'income from short term capital gains' as declared by the assessee and whether to be assessed under the head 'income from business', had held as under:- "6. We have heard rival submissions and perused material before us. We find that the AO had held that assessee company was engaged trading in share and had not made investments, that First Appellate Authority (FAA) had upheld the quantum order passed by the AO, that the AO had levied pe .....

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