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 →

Anurag Toshniwal Versus The DCIT, Mumbai And Vica-Versa

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - difference between the reported and the assessed income on account of 'Non-compete fees' - Held that:- The only point of difference between the assessee and the Revenue is the relevant head of income under which the receipt from M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be taxed. Therefore, it is a case where a claim made in the return of income of taxing the receipt from M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. under the head 'capital gain' has been f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

venue revolves around the head of income under which the impugned receipt from M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be taxed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.(2013 (3) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) held that where there is only a change of head of income and in the absence of facts to show that the claim of the assessee was not bonafide, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not maintainable. On this count also, we find that 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

orded orders of the CIT(A) dated 26/12/2014, whereby the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for assessment year 2009-10 vide respective orders dated 12/3/2013 have been affirmed. Since the facts and circumstances in both the appeals are common, the appeal in the case of Shri Arun Toshniwal in ITA No.211/Mum/2015 is taken as the lead case. 2. The appellant in ITA NO.211/Mum/2015 is an individual, who filed his r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en the reported and the assessed income of ₹ 5.00 crores was on account of 'Non-compete fees' received by the assessee from M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. In the return of income assessee had declared the said sum of ₹ 5.00 crores as a long term capital gain against which he claimed deduction under section 54EC to the tune of ₹ 50.00 lacs and the balance amount of ₹ 4.50 crores was deposited in the capital gain saving account. The Assessing Officer howeve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ticulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, qua the aforesaid amount. As a consequence the Assessing Officer levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid sum, which came to ₹ 1.50 crores. As per the Assessing Officer, assessee had willfully claimed the 'Non-Compete fee' of ₹ 5.00 crores as long term capital gain to avoid taxability of business income which had resulted in a lo .....

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, therefore, there was no concealment. Secondly, it is pointed out that the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 28(va) of the Act was merely based on an interpretation of law, which was in variance with that of the assessee. According to the appellant, at the time of filing of the return of income the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara Vs. ACIT, 126 ITD 100(Mum) supported the stand of the assessee and, therefore, the claim made .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount assessed by the Assessing Officer and that merely the head of income has been changed, which does not justify the levy of penalty and in support reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bennet Coelman & Co. Ltd., Income Tax Appeal (LOD) No. 2117 of 2012 dated 26/2/2013, a copy of which has been placed on record. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue has defended the levy of penalty by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593(SC) to submit that even in a case of a voluntary addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is justified. Ld. Departmental Representative has referred to the discussion made by the CIT(A) in his order whereby it has been concluded that the explanation of the assessee regarding nonapplication of section 28(va) of the Act was incorrect and not bonafide. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

income. 6.1 In the present case, the penalty has been levied with regard to an amount of ₹ 5.00 crores, which has been found to be assessable as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' by invocation of section 28(va) of the Act. In so far as the merit of the said stand of the Assessing Officer is concerned, the same is not the issue before us. What we are concerned is the purported satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for levy 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

. Ltd. since 1/7/1983. The said concern is engaged in the manufacture and assembling of various types of laboratory equipments. The said concern sold one of its Division called 'analytical technologies and instrumentation' to M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. on slump sale basis vide agreement dated 27/5/2008 for a consideration of ₹ 58,00,00,000/-. In the said agreement there was a Non-Compete clause, in terms of which the seller for an agreed period of four years was prohib .....

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 acquired business. Subsequently on 2/6/2008, purchaser company M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. entered into a separate Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation agreement with the assessee whereby the assessee received a sum of ₹ 5.00 crores. In the return of income filed, assessee treated such receipt on account of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation agreement as a long term capital gain. So however, the Assessing Officer was of the view that such receipt was assessable as a business 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

..." and concluded that the sum of ₹ 5 crores was an amount assessable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' and not as capital gains. 6.2 As per the Revenue, the aforesaid provision inserted by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1/4/2003 clearly established that the sum of ₹ 5.00 crores received by the assessee for not carrying out any activity in relation to the business acquired by M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. was chargeable to tax under the he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onafide claim or not. In support of the bonafides of assessee's claim, it has been asserted before us that at the time of filing of the return of income the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara(supra) dated 22/5/2009 was prevailing which was in favour of assessee's stand. In the said decision, the Tribunal was dealing with receipt of Non-Compete fee for assessment year 2005-06, which was after insertion of section 28(va) of the Act, and yet i .....

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 is that the business which has been transferred was being carried out by Chemito Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee himself because assessee was a director of Chemito Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 6.3 Factually speaking, the proposition sought to be canvassed by the assessee in the return of income filed on 30/7/2009 was indeed supported by the then prevailing decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara(supra). It is only subsequently the Special B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ror. Accordingly, as per Special Bench the purchaser of business may pay consideration to the transferor of business for not engaging in any competition but also to persons associated with the transferor for not engaging in competition. As per the Special Bench, the receipt of Non-Compete fee by the persons connected with the transferor for not indulging in competition would also fall for consideration under section 28(va) of the Act. It is this proposition which has prevailed and the issue has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

), which was prevailing at the relevant time. In fact the Ld. Representative for the assessee also referred to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Savita Mandhana in ITA No.3900/Mum/2010 for Assessment Year 2006-07 dated 7/10/2011, wherein also the proposition laid down by the Tribunal in the case Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara(supra) has been affirmed. The decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. V.V. Raju (supra), which has disagreed with the earlier rulings has bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As per Hon'ble Supreme Court, where no information given in the return of income is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere making of wrong claim in the return of income would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Quite clearly, in the present case, there is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m M/s. Termo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. under the head 'capital gain' has been found to be not sustainable in law. As per the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. (supra), such a fact-situation does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding income within the meaning of section under 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, on this aspect itself the penalty is unsustainable. 6.6 To repeat, the entire fact-situatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

intainable. On this count also, we find that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) in the present case is unsustainable. 6.7 Before parting, we may refer to the reliance placed by the CIT(A) as well as by the Ld. Departmental Representative on the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd.(supra) to justify the levy of penalty in the present case. We have carefully perused the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and find that the said decision has been rendered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d an income to settle the dispute. In fact, the fact-situation before us stands on a different footing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that in the course of examining the efficacy of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the question to be examined is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Explanation to section 271(1) of the Act raise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

foresaid proposition to the facts of the case before it and found that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was exigible. So however, in the context of the factual matrix which is before us, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be justified even on application of the aforesaid legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd.(supra). We say so for the reason that in the present case assessee has been able to demonstrate that t .....

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
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

News: Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters

News: Clarification about Transition Credit

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Cess paid instead of SGST

Forum: Manpower Service provider

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer

Notification: Exempts inter-state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 09/2017-IT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 08/2017-IT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services.

News: Tax on fuel more important for a dry state like Gujarat

Highlight: For an ayurvedic medicine to be classified under Chapter 30 has to pass the test whether it is for cure of any disease. If the same is only meant for care, then such product would not fall under medicament.

Highlight: Demand of interest - the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim of interest thereon.

Highlight: Government issues new notifications under CGST, IGST and UTGST to grant fresh exemptions in respect of certain supplies.

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Article: SIMPLIFIED E-WAY BILL UNDER GST

Article: SERVICES UNDER REVERSE CHARGE UNDER GST REGIME

Highlight: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 22th September, 2017 - Notification

Highlight: Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 - Notification

Highlight: Implementing Electronic Sealing for containers by exporters under self-sealing procedure prescribed by Circular 26/2017-Cus dated 1st July, 2017 and Circular 36/2017 dated 28 th August, 2017. reg. - Circular

Highlight: Amendment to Paragraph 2.72 (b) of the Handbook of Procedures of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20 - Public Notice

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012



|| 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