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 →

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi Versus M/s. Dreamland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (10) TMI 1704 - ITAT DELHI

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - treating part of income from sale of shares as business income instead of capital gains by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- The bifurcation of the short term capital gain and treating the transaction as investment in the cases where the holding period of more than 30 days and as business transaction in the case where the holding period is less than 30 day, in our considered opinion, is not justified on the part of the CIT(A). Since there cannot be a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

above findings of Hon’ble Tribunal we find that assessee has been granted relief in this respect and therefore the penalty imposed by AO does not survive. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No: 736/Del/2012 - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - SHRI T.S. KAPOOR AND SMT BEENA A PILLAI, JJ. For The Appellant : Smt. Parvinder Kaur, Sr. DR For The Respondent :Shri Santosh K Aggarwal, Advocate ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 21. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

airly acceded that this has been deleted by Hon ble Tribunal. 2. We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record. We find that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed by the AO as he treated part of income from sale of shares as business income instead of capital gains by the assessee. In this respect relevant part of AO imposing penalty are reproduced below :- After concluding the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/ s 271(1)( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tly allowed the appeal of the assessee, and held that ₹ 36,09,941/- earned by the assessee on account of sales of shares is business income, and thus confirmed the addition made by the AO at least up to this extent. The relevant extract of the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this very issue is reproduced below.- "I am of the view that it cannot be said in respect of sale of shares made within a short period of 30 days of purchase of shares that these shares has also been purchased by 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

ention of the appellant to the extent of short term capital gain of ₹ 1,39,41,555/- and hold that amount of ₹ 36,09,941/- in the nature of business income. After receiving the order of the Ld CIT(A) on 04.05.2010, the undersigned, once again, issued a show cause notice u/ s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (dated 08.09.2010) , and asked why penalty should not be imposed in your case with request to attend my office on20.09.2010 at 11.30 a.m. Assessee, on the other hand, replied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shall further be appreciated that it is a case where income of short term capital gain treated as Business Income; which have very less magnitude of transactions during the assessment year and genuine expenses were claimed under the bona fide belief that they are allowable which were disallowed by your honour. There is neither any concealment nor any inaccurate particulars of any income. All the facts are on record and were disclosed suo motto. It is submitted that on the facts and in the circum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

but found that it has no force because holding the addition made by the AO up to the extent of ₹ 36,09,941/ - by the Ld CIT(A) is clear cut evidence of concealment on the part of the assessee. Besides this, it is also noted that initially the assessee did not offer even such amount as its Business Income, it was AO who arduously made it possible. Then, the contention of the assessee .that it is neither concealment nor furnishing inaccurate particulars, was accordingly rejected. In view 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

t works out to ₹ 10,82,982/- and ₹ 32,48,946/ - respectively. I am, therefore, levy a penalty of ₹ 10,82,982/- u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act , 1961, which is calculated hereunder: Income sought to be evaded ₹ 36,09,941/- Tax on income sought to be evaded Rs.10,82,982/- Minimum penalty @ 100% of tax ₹ 10,82,982/- Maximum penalty @ 300% of tax ₹ 32,48,946/- 3. We find that the Hon ble Tribunal vide its order dated 12th December, 2014 has disposed of cross .....

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