Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:        

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 167

the sale and lease back transaction. The claim of the assessee that the asset was originally belonged to a particular person, was proved to be wrong. In fact, the invoices were forged in the name of the assessee. On examination, the suppliers of the asset confirmed that they did not issue any invoice in the name of the assessee. When the assessee was cornered on all the four corners and it was found to be a bogus transaction of sale and purchase of asset, the assessee withdrew the claim of depreciation. Therefore, it is not a case of making a claim after furnishing all the particulars of income. It is a case of making a claim on the basis of the so-called bogus transaction. The suppliers of the asset clarified that no transaction was entere .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ed and leased out in the second half of the financial year 1995-96, which was disallowed. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed depreciation on the asset relating to three more lease transactions which were entered into by the assessee during the relevant previous year with M/s Aban Lloyd Chiles Offshore Ltd., M/s A.V.S. Industries Ltd. and M/s Mid East Integrated Steel Ltd. to the extent of ₹ 4,95,00,000/-, ₹ 36,25,000/- and ₹ 7,30,59,000/- respectively. 3. According to the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the Assessing Officer further found that during the assessment year 1995-96, a similar transaction of purchase and lease back was entered in the case of 14 parties and the Assessing Officer found that the entire transa .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ance on the judgment of Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 and submitted that merely because the assessee surrendered the claim of depreciation and offered the same for taxation, it cannot be construed that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the contrary, Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that it purchased windmill and leased back the same to M/s Aban Lloyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. Similarly, the assessee has also claimed 14 transactions as sale and lease back .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

id East Integrated Steel Ltd., the Assessing Officer found that M/s Mid East Integrated Steel Ltd. purchased the assets earlier and thereafter forged the sale invoices by inserting the name of the assessee as buyer. The Assessing Officer examined the supplier and the supplier clarified during the course of examination that he has not issued any such invoice to the assessee as claimed before the Assessing Officer. Since the transaction was established as bogus, the assessee itself came forward by a letter dated 30.03.1999 claiming that the claim of depreciation would not be pressed. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that when the transactions between the assessee and other parties could not be treated as sale and lease back transactions, then i .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

The fact remains that the assessee is a banking company and claimed before the Assessing Officer that it entered into the sale and lease back transaction. The claim of the assessee that the asset was originally belonged to a particular person, was proved to be wrong. In fact, the invoices were forged in the name of the assessee. On examination, the suppliers of the asset confirmed that they did not issue any invoice in the name of the assessee. When the assessee was cornered on all the four corners and it was found to be a bogus transaction of sale and purchase of asset, the assessee withdrew the claim of depreciation. Therefore, it is not a case of making a claim after furnishing all the particulars of income. It is a case of making a cla .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||

 
  • Advanced Search
  • Discussion Forum
  • What is New
  • Recent Case Laws
  • Latest Notifications
  • Calendar
  • Experts - Forum
  • Experts - Articles
  • Compute Income Tax
  • Online - Tax / Returns
  • Some Useful Sites
  • Refer to a Friend
  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms and Conditions