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

2015 (12) TMI 462 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (12) TMI 462 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Revision u/s 263 - CIT held that the AO has failed to verify the correctness of loss declared by the assessee company in the construction project - Held that:- AO after discussions made additions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to payment made directly by the buyer M/s Silverline Enterprise to M/s Sarovar Developers Private Limited on behalf of the assessee company being out of court settlement amount without deduction of TDS which was considered 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

on, sale of project and other facts and circumstances surrounding this project which is the sole project undertaken by the assessee company, while framing the assessment order dated 01-03-2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act.

The AO accepted the loss sustained by the assessee company in this project to be allowed to be set off against other income of the assessee after application of mind and considering relevant material on record which was one of the plausible view taken by the AO which view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri G M Doss ORDER Per Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee company is directed against the Order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai (Hereinafter called "the CIT ) dated 26th March 2015 passed u/s 263 of Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called "the Act") for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 01st March 2013 was passed 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

d 72 flats to M/s Silverline Enterprise on 7th July 2009. The records reveal that while the cost of construction is ₹ 12,054 per sq. meter, the selling price is ₹ 10,832.38 per sq. meter. ii) The creditworthiness of the purchaser M/s Silverline Enterprise is not verified by the Assessing Officer by analysis of bank account statements and ledger accounts of this party. 4. The assessee company replied before the CIT in proceedings u/s 263 of the Act as under: - There was a dispute betw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, examined the records of assessment and observed that the Assessing Officer has not examined these two issues as per the CIT show cause notice dated 13th March 2015, in the course of assessment proceedings and they have important bearing on the assessment of the correct income of the assessee company. The CIT held that the AO has failed to verify the correctness of loss declared by the assessee company in the construction project.The CIT held that the assessee company has shown cost of constru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pite of income from these sources of ₹ 1,70,07,861/-, the assessee company has shown gross total income only of ₹ 3,40,927/- and after claim of TDS of ₹ 27,54,028/, assessee company has claimed refund of ₹ 22,90,571/-. These facts reveals that on account of loss in respect of housing project, the actual effect of rental income and interest income of ₹ 1,70,07,861/- has been negated. The AO has not investigated the facts from this angle nor has he made any enquiry fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2015 that they are informed that the A.O. has cross summoned M/s Silverline Enterprise, verified entire deal and collected the entire information including creditworthiness of M/s. Silverline Enterprise which must be on record. The CIT called for and examined the assessment records and observed that the AO has issued two notices u/s 133(6) of the Act calling for details from M/s. Silverline Enterprise which notices were duly served but there are no evidence on record of compliances of these not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee company filed appeal before us. 7. The assessee company submitted before us that the assessee company has only one project at Gandhinagar, Gujarat and the assessee company purchased land from the M/s Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide agreement dated 25-01-2008 for ₹ 1,16,49,300/- (inclusive of the registration charges and stamp duty). The assessee company submitted that it entered into development agreement with M/s Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. 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

cipal Civil Judge of Gandhinagar, Gujarat which was registered as Suit no. C.S.No. 144 of 2009. Due to delays in getting the requisite clearances and the suit filed against the assessee company, the afore-stated project was struck and there was delay in the project whereby the costs escalated and the assessee company start looking for the buyer to sell the entire project and finally got the buyer M/s Silverline Enterprise to sell the entire project for ₹ 7,98,00,000. The said buyer mediate .....

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 the suit was withdrawn by M/s Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. for which the necessary orders were passed by Hon ble Add. Sen. C.J.Gandhinagar on 20th May 2009 in suit no. R.C.S No. 144 of 09 disposing of the suit as withdrawn. The assessee company submitted that the sale agreement dated 07th July 2009 was entered into between M/s. Silverline Enterprise and the assessee company whereas the developer M/s Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. became the confirming party and balance payment was received fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mitted that during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, there was discussions at length by the AO about this project which is the only one project undertaken by the assessee company and the Revenue has all the details about this project before it while framing original assessment order dated 01.03.2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee company drew our attention to the para 2 & 3 of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 01-03-2013 which are reproduced below .....

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 given its land at Chandkheda, District Gandhinagar, Gujarat for development to M/s.Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide development agreement dtd. 25.1.2008. Sarovar developers Pvt. Ltd. had agreed to construct a building for the assessee as per approved plans for a consideration of ₹ 6,75,60,000/ -. The assessee had paid ₹ 6,05,60,000/ - to the contractor and ₹ 70 Lacs remained outstanding. Thereafter a dispute arose between, the assessee and the contractor regarding obtaining .....

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's reply is reproduced as under: 3.2 Reply dated.11.2.2013: "As regards to the payment of ₹ 75,00,000/- to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. by M/s. Silver Enterprises, the payment was not paid towards construction but the said payment is the settlement amount as per the out of court settlement succeeding the suit No. 144/209 filed by M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. in the court of 5th Additional senior Civil judge, Gandhinagar, Gujrat,. The relevant papers have alr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

already on your record. Further we draw kind attention to the Clause No. 3(c) on Page no. 6 of Development Agreement dated 25.01.2008 which reads as under - (Copy of Relevant page enclosed marked as Annexure-1). "Balance amount of ₹ 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs only) within 10 days from getting Building Use permission / Occupation Certificate from the concern authorities without any omission, delay or default for any reason". Since the Developer has not obtained the Business .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mount of R.s 75,00,000/- which was paid by the buyer as mentioned in the sale deed is as per out of court settlement in-order to get sale deal through by withdrawing the suit filed by the developer. Further the payment of ₹ 75,00,000/- was a settlement amount which can further be confirmed from the cancellation deed which is already on your record and not a contractual payment. We are enclosing herewith the relevant part of the cancellation deed marked as Annexure-2. The said amount 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 settlement in order to get the sale deal through. In view of the above, there seems no reasons to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above The real sales consideration received by the assessee company is ₹ 7,23,00,000/- (Rs.7,98,00,000/-less ₹ 75,00,000/-) and not ₹ 7,98,00,000/-. The Sum of ₹ 75,00,000/- lakh paid by M/s. Silverline Enterprises - the buyer of the said property directly to M/s. Sarovar Developers P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eceived less amount hence it was having two options - l)to account for the net amount of ₹ 7,23,00,000/- as sale value of the said property 2) to account for the gross sale and show the short receipt of ₹ 75,00,000/- towards expenses and the best possible account head was development charges. The assessee is correctly accounted as per the second option. In view of the above there is no reason that the said amount of ₹ 75,00,000/- be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of The Income Tax 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

d such payment is covered under section 194C. In its letter dtd.1l.2.2013 the assessee has clearly stated that it has deducted tax at source on payment of ₹ 6,05,60,000/ -.Thus the contention that ₹ 75 lacs is not part of this contract consideration is factually incorrect. Although the dispute arisen with the contractor was settled out of court the essence of payment is the original development contract for construction of building. As the assessee failed to pay the balance contractu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reement to ensure recovery of the outstanding contractual consideration from assessee and no further obstacle by contractor against sale of building. Hence it cannot be said that payment was made for out of court settlement and not towards construction. Once it is established that the payment has been made for construction work it attracts provisions of section 194C. 3.4 Moreover it is mentioned in the Settlement Agreement that payment of ₹ 75,00,000/ - was towards the development of the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

settled between both the parties that due to circumstances beyond control of both B.U. permission has not been received. Hence, it is agreed between the first party and the second party that tile first party will pay ₹ 75,00,000/- including interest as a full and final settlement towards the development towards the development of the said property." 3.5 From the above it can be seen that out of ₹ 75,00,000/- debited by the assessee an amount of ₹ 70,00,000/ - pertains to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C. 3.6 The contention that the payment has not been made by the assessee company but paid by the buyer directly to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. to defend its stand of not effecting TDS is not tenable, The buyer, M/ s. Silverline Enterprise purchased the building so constructed from the assessee for total consideration of ₹ 7,98,00,000/ - vide agreement dtd.7.7.2009.Out of the agreed total consideration Silverline Enterprise paid ₹ 75,00,000/ - to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

da, Chankheda Branch, drawn in favour of the Second Party towards full and final payment of all their dues/outstanding including interest for delayed payment etc. under the said Development Agreement." b) Agreement dtd.7.7.2009 "Thereafter the confirming party (M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd) had filed suit No. 144/2009 before 5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar Against Vidyasagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., for recovering the balance development charges and as per the instruction 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

velopers Pvt, Ltd attracting provisions of section 194C. Hence the assessee cannot escape the responsibility cast upon it under section 194C on the ground that the payment was made by M/s. Silverline Enterprise when it was paid on the specific instruction of the assessee company. Applicability of Section 194C 3.8 Without prejudice to the above the provisions of section 194C and applicability in the instant case is discussed as under: Section 194C. lays down that " Any person responsible 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

s being made or credit is being given to an individual or a Hindu undivided family; (ii) two per cent where the payment is being made or credit is being given to a person other than an individual or a Hindu undivided family, Of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein." 3.9 On plain reading of the section it is understood that a person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

000/ - assessee was responsible to effect TDS on such payment under section 194C. Although the payment of ₹ 75,00,000/- has been made by M/s. Silverline Enterprise the same has been made on behalf of the assessee under the development agreement. Hence payment made by Silver Line does not alter the nature of expenditure in the hands of the assessee. For the assessee it was payment made for development of property i.e. for construction of building. Even if Silverline Enterprises had paid to .....

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 assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C, on the said payment. Hence the expenditure of ₹ 75,00,000/-is hereby disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income." Thus, the assessee company submitted that the AO h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this project which was before AO during assessment proceedings and accordingly loss was allowed by the AO. The assessee company also submitted that the additions of ₹ 75,00,000/- made by the AO in the assessment order dated 01.03.2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act on account of failure of the assessee company to deduct TDS on payment of out of court settlement amount directly by M/s Silverline Enterprise to M/s Sarovar Developers Private Limited on behalf of the assessee company has already been d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee company arising out of sale of this project after due application of mind and considering all relevant material which was on records and is part of assessment records. The assessee company submitted that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are bad in law as the AO has already accepted the cost of construction of the project and consequent loss incurred by the assessee company after due application of mind and allowed the loss to the assessee company in original assessment proceedings u/s 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

3 u/s 143(3) of the Act are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the orders dated 26th March 2015 passed u/s 263 of the Act by CIT are bad in law and liable to be set aside 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the orders dated 26th March 2015 u/s 263 of the Act of the CIT and submitted that the cost of construction of the project needs to be verified as held by the CIT in his orders dated 26th March 2015 u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. DR relied upon decision of Ho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cost of construction of the project and hence the assessment orders dated 01-03-2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which has been rightly set aside by the CIT with directions to consider these matter afresh and frame fresh assessment order. The Ld. DR contended that so far as observation of CIT to verify credit worthiness of Buyer is concerned, the same is not pressed before the Tribunal. 9. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the mat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imited which prompted the said company M/s Sarovar Developers Private Limited to file suit against the assessee company for recovery of their dues in the court of Hon. Principal Civil Judge of Gandhinagar, Gujarat which was registered as suit no. C.S.No. 144 of 2009 and it is mainly the delay in receipt of clearances and subsequent court litigations which escalated costs and consequent losses suffered by the assessee company. The assessee company has submitted that then it decided to sell the en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evelopers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee company entered into deed of cancellation as well deed of rectification both dated 20th May 2009 with M/s Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd.. The said Buyer M/s Silverline Enterprise paid ₹ 75,00,000/- directly to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. being the out of court settlement amount and the suit was withdrawn by M/s Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. for which the orders were passed by Hon ble Add. Sen. C.J.Gandhinagar on 20th May 2009 in suit no. R.C.S No. 144 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

ompany in this project after taking into account extra ordinary expenses of interest and settlement amount, which loss was claimed as business loss by the assessee company in the return of income filed with Revenue. We have also observed that there are discussions in the order of assessment dated 1-3-2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by AO whereby the details about this project are discussed by the AO. Reference to para 2 & 3 of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 01-03-2013 whi .....

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 at Chandkheda, District Gandhinagar, Gujarat for development to M/s.Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide development agreement dtd. 25.1.2008. Sarovar developers Pvt. Ltd. had agreed to construct a building for the assessee as per approved plans for a consideration of ₹ 6,75,60,000/ -. The assessee had paid ₹ 6,05,60,000/ - to the contractor and ₹ 70 Lacs remained outstanding. Thereafter a dispute arose between, the assessee and the contractor regarding obtaining B.U.(Building .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reply is reproduced as under: 3.2 Reply dated.11.2.2013: "As regards to the payment of ₹ 75,00,000/- to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. by M/s. Silver Enterprises, the payment was not paid towards construction but the said payment is the settlement amount as per the out of court settlement succeeding the suit No. 144/209 filed by M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. in the court of 5th Additional senior Civil judge, Gandhinagar, Gujrat,. The relevant papers have already been subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r record. Further we draw kind attention to the Clause No. 3(c) on Page no. 6 of Development Agreement dated 25.01.2008 which reads as under - (Copy of Relevant page enclosed marked as Annexure-1). "Balance amount of ₹ 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs only) within 10 days from getting Building Use permission / Occupation Certificate from the concern authorities without any omission, delay or default for any reason". Since the Developer has not obtained the Business Use Permission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5,00,000/- which was paid by the buyer as mentioned in the sale deed is as per out of court settlement in-order to get sale deal through by withdrawing the suit filed by the developer. Further the payment of ₹ 75,00,000/- was a settlement amount which can further be confirmed from the cancellation deed which is already on your record and not a contractual payment. We are enclosing herewith the relevant part of the cancellation deed marked as Annexure-2. The said amount of ₹ 75,00,000 .....

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 order to get the sale deal through. In view of the above, there seems no reasons to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above The real sales consideration received by the assessee company is ₹ 7,23,00,000/- (Rs.7,98,00,000/-less ₹ 75,00,000/-) and not ₹ 7,98,00,000/-. The Sum of ₹ 75,00,000/- lakh paid by M/s. Silverline Enterprises - the buyer of the said property directly to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd - 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

mount hence it was having two options - l)to account for the net amount of ₹ 7,23,00,000/- as sale value of the said property 2) to account for the gross sale and show the short receipt of ₹ 75,00,000/- towards expenses and the best possible account head was development charges. The assessee is correctly accounted as per the second option. In view of the above there is no reason that the said amount of ₹ 75,00,000/- be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of The Income Tax Act, 1961." .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is covered under section 194C. In its letter dtd.1l.2.2013 the assessee has clearly stated that it has deducted tax at source on payment of ₹ 6,05,60,000/ -.Thus the contention that ₹ 75 lacs is not part of this contract consideration is factually incorrect. Although the dispute arisen with the contractor was settled out of court the essence of payment is the original development contract for construction of building. As the assessee failed to pay the balance contractual considerati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ure recovery of the outstanding contractual consideration from assessee and no further obstacle by contractor against sale of building. Hence it cannot be said that payment was made for out of court settlement and not towards construction. Once it is established that the payment has been made for construction work it attracts provisions of section 194C. 3.4 Moreover it is mentioned in the Settlement Agreement that payment of ₹ 75,00,000/ - was towards the development of the said property.& .....

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 both the parties that due to circumstances beyond control of both B.U. permission has not been received. Hence, it is agreed between the first party and the second party that tile first party will pay ₹ 75,00,000/- including interest as a full and final settlement towards the development towards the development of the said property." 3.5 From the above it can be seen that out of ₹ 75,00,000/- debited by the assessee an amount of ₹ 70,00,000/ - pertains to the balance co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tention that the payment has not been made by the assessee company but paid by the buyer directly to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd. to defend its stand of not effecting TDS is not tenable, The buyer, M/ s. Silverline Enterprise purchased the building so constructed from the assessee for total consideration of ₹ 7,98,00,000/ - vide agreement dtd.7.7.2009.Out of the agreed total consideration Silverline Enterprise paid ₹ 75,00,000/ - to M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd on behalf 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

Branch, drawn in favour of the Second Party towards full and final payment of all their dues/outstanding including interest for delayed payment etc. under the said Development Agreement." b) Agreement dtd.7.7.2009 "Thereafter the confirming party (M/s. Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd) had filed suit No. 144/2009 before 5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar Against Vidyasagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., for recovering the balance development charges and as per the instruction of Vendor(Vidya .....

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 attracting provisions of section 194C. Hence the assessee cannot escape the responsibility cast upon it under section 194C on the ground that the payment was made by M/s. Silverline Enterprise when it was paid on the specific instruction of the assessee company. Applicability of Section 194C 3.8 Without prejudice to the above the provisions of section 194C and applicability in the instant case is discussed as under: Section 194C. lays down that " Any person responsible for paying any su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r credit is being given to an individual or a Hindu undivided family; (ii) two per cent where the payment is being made or credit is being given to a person other than an individual or a Hindu undivided family, Of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein." 3.9 On plain reading of the section it is understood that a person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person, he has to dedu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e was responsible to effect TDS on such payment under section 194C. Although the payment of ₹ 75,00,000/- has been made by M/s. Silverline Enterprise the same has been made on behalf of the assessee under the development agreement. Hence payment made by Silver Line does not alter the nature of expenditure in the hands of the assessee. For the assessee it was payment made for development of property i.e. for construction of building. Even if Silverline Enterprises had paid to the assessee 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

has failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C, on the said payment. Hence the expenditure of ₹ 75,00,000/-is hereby disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income." The AO after discussions made additions of ₹ 75,00,000/-u/ .....

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