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

2015 (11) TMI 1 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 1 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - addition on 'deemed dividendí under section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- It is a case where the assessee failed to substantiate its stand about the perception of viewing a particular transaction. A difference in perception about a transaction, in our view, would not constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Notably, a perusal of the assessment order passed by 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

MI 80 - SUPREME COURT) has held that unless there is a finding that any of the details or particulars supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, it would not invite the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act merely because the claim made in the return of income has been found to be unsustainable. In the present case, factually speaking, the situation is of a varying perception of the nature of transaction which has resulted in application of secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal For The Revenue : Dr.P.Daniel, Special Counsel ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 28/02/2007 passed by the CIT(A)-VII, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01, which in-turn has arisen from the order passed by the ACIT dated 24/12/2010 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short the Act ). 2. In this appeal the sole grieva .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f ₹ 7.00 lacs, which has been assessed to tax as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this context, brief facts are that the assessee was found to have received a sum of ₹ 7.00 lacs from M/s. Classic Credit Ltd., which was treated by the Assessing Officer as a deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The said addition made by the Assessing Officer has become final, as stated by the Ld. Representative for the assessee before us. 3.1 Subsequen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sing Officer has since been affirmed by the CIT(A) also. Before us, Ld. Representative for the assessee has assailed the stand of the income-tax authorities by pointing out that there was no inaccurate particular filed by the assessee in as much as the assessee claimed that the amount of ₹ 7.00 lacs in question was received from M/s. Classic Credit Ltd., in the regular course of business. As per him, the assessee as well as M/s. Classic Credit Ltd. were in the business of dealing in shares .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the claim does not give rise to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.1 Emphasizing that there was no deliberate intention to conceal the impugned income, the Ld. Representative for the assessee contended that the assessee and the group companies have declared incomes for assessment year under consideration of substantial amounts and in comparison the impugned sum of ₹ 7.00 lacs was an insignificant figure. Therefore, it could not be said that assessee had had deliberately not tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iculars of income and thus, in the light of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC), penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Special Counsel appearing for the Revenue has defended the orders of authorities below for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. Special Counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that in the present case the provisions of section 2(22)(e) 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

ions. Factually speaking, the addition of ₹ 7.00 lacs, which is the controversy before us has been held to be an amount assessable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Pertinently, the said amount was found to have been received by the assessee on 27/03/2000 from M/s. Classic Credit Ltd., and in so far as the applicability of section 2(22)(e) qua the said transaction is concerned there is no dispute. No doubt, assessee contended before the income-tax authorities that the 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

a company in which public are not substantially interested shall be construed as deemed dividend, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The claim of the assessee has been that the impugned sum of ₹ 7.00 lacs received from M/s. Classic Credit Ltd. is not in the nature of loan or advance and rather it was a business transaction. The Assessing Officer however, differed with the assessee and according to him assessee could not substantiate that the transaction was falling outside 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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