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 574 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (11) TMI 574 - ITAT DELHI - [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 253 (ITAT [Del]) - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - allowability of business losses under a particular head of brought forward losses or the other head of brought forward losses - Held that:- he assessee has disclosed all material facts relevant for its assessment to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment itself. It is a case of honest difference of opinion between the assessee and the Revenue regarding allowability of business loss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of our decision that this case is not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on its merits, we are not adjudicating the other legal issues raised by learned counsel for the assessee on the legality of the penalty order. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 1025 /Del/ 2010 (assessment year 2004-05). - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - G. C. GUPTA (Vice-President) and SMT. B. C. MEENA (Accountant Member) Salil Kapoor and Vikas Jain for the appellant. Ms. Y. Kakkar for 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

,41,758 is bad in law and liable to be quashed." 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation prior to the financial year 2001-02. He submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year 2002-03, there was a change in shareholding of the assessee-company. He submitted that the assessee has set off business income of ₹ 1.85 crores during the relevant assessment year 2004-05 and had set off the brought for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also given Note No. 3 as a part of Form 3CD wherein this fact of change in the shareholding of the company was specifically mentioned. This letter of the assessee dated December 13, 2006 was accepted by the Assessing Officer and the assessed income and returned income of the assessee had remained the same at nil. He submitted that the conduct of the assessee was bona fide as it has taken legal opinion from the esteemed M/s. Bansi S. Mehta and Co., Mumbai, dated June 15, 2001 wherein they had op .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessment order and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Delhi), 155. He submitted that the charge in this case was that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was levied by invoking Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is a deeming provision for concealment of income and not for furnishing of any inaccurate particular .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Harnarain I. T. A. No. 2072/2010, CIT v. Shyama A Bijapurkar I. T. A. No. 842 of 2010 and of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. A. B. Movies P. Ltd. I. T. A. No. 432/Del/2009. Alternatively, he argued that no tax was sought to be evaded and therefore, no penalty could be levied. 5. The learned Departmental representative vehemently opposed the submissions of learn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

forward business losses as there was only one legal opinion and that was as old as dated June 15, 2001. She submitted that it is a case of clear violation of the provisions of section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the penalty was rightly levied under section271(1)(c) of the Act. She relied on a series of decisions in support of the case of the Revenue as under : (1) CIT v. Smt. Santosh Sharma [2009] 311 ITR 353 (Delhi) ; (2) CIT v. Pearey Lal and Sons (EP) Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 43 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) Asst. CIT v. Dinesh Goel [2011] 10 ITR (Trib) 330 (Delhi) ; (11) Subhash S. Shah v. ITO [2013] 213 Taxman 43 (Guj) (Mag.) ; (12) CIT v. Morgan Finvest P. Ltd. [2013] 213 Taxman 23 (Delhi) (Mag) ; (13) K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) ; (14) CIT v. R. M. P. Plasto P.Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC) ; (15) U. P. Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 447 (All) ; and (16) CIT v. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl [2013] 37 taxmann.com 347 (Delhi). 6. She referred to the relevant port .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

;ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rita Malhotra [1985] 154 ITR 550 (Delhi). 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and also copies of various documents filed in the compilation filed before us. We find that the assessee has claimed the set off of its business income at ₹ 1.85 crores against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years. This claim of the assessee was based .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Assessing Officer. We have to see the overall conduct of the assessee. It is not the law that wherever there is an addition or disallowance made by the Revenue, the assessee should be held liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue could not be said to be non-debatable as the business loss could be adjusted against the brought forward business loss in certain conditions as detailed by the consultant in their letter dated June 15, 2001. We find that the loss was allowed .....

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 out that the claim of set off made by the assessee was not in accordance with law. The assessed income and returned income in this case was nil. The only material change was that the business income was set off by the assessee against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years in the return of income and, thereafter, was claimed to be set off against another head of unabsorbed depreciation. The argument of the learned Departmental representative, that the assessee could not sh .....

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