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 →

M/s. AML Steel Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 1 (1) , Chennai

2016 (4) TMI 1056 - ITAT CHENNAI

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee has wrongly computed the deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act by showing the wrong depreciation. Had the Assessing Officer not verified it, it would have gone out of the taxation. Being so, in the present case in hand also there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.Accordingly, we are inclined to confirm the levy of u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A.No.2193/Mds. /2014 - Dated:- 18-3-2016 - SHRI CHANDRA PO .....

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 a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the person, who is handling appeal papers, i.e. Mr.P.Viswanathan, Manager, Accounts of the Company, suffered from leptospirosis fever and he was not available to take up the case with the assessee s counsel and that cause for delay. To this effect, the assessee also filed the medical certificate dated 16.08.2014 from Kerala Ayurvedic Treatment Center, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40. We hav .....

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)(ia) and allowed u/s.80IB of the Act only ₹ 15,37,473/- against the claim of assessee ₹ 95,33,528/-. However, since the taxable income u/s.115JB was more the assessee was taxed as per 115JB of the Act. The excess claim of s.80IB was due to non-adoption of depreciation as per I.T Rules. The depreciation claimed as per books (Companies Act) was ₹ 70,64,166 whereas as per IT Rules it is ₹ 3,55,77,075/-. By claiming lesser depreciation the assessee has shown more eligible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) (b) (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or Explanation 1.-Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,- (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing] Officer or the Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me in respect of which particulars have been concealed. From the above provisions and the Explanation, it is interesting to note that the legislators have not limited the offence for any specific year or a specific method of computation like normal provisions or 11 5JB provisions. The act of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income will itself attract provisions of s.271(1)(c). It is also clear from the Explanation that the wrong facts will matt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant who has offered the income for taxation u/s 11 5JB, but it will definitely have an effect on the Reserves & Surpluses of the year and subsequent years. Further, the impact may also accentuate if the appellant offers the income for taxation in the subsequent years under normal computation instead of I I5JB. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion, the glorified Reserves & Surpluses in the subsequent years which have arisen out of wrong claim of depreciation and the resultant deduction 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

is aware that claiming of more quantum of eligible depreciation will reduce their eligible deduction u/s 8OlB, therefore, it has claimed only a lesser quantum of depreciation per Companies Act. This shows willful attempt to claim more deduction. The appellant has furnished an explanation which it is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide as per Explanation I to s.271(I)(c). The appellant s bald explanation, that claim of depreciation is not material in its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ular action of submission of inaccurate particulars of income irrespective of the year in which such submission of inaccurate particulars have arisen will also subscribe to the above penalty provisions. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. ld.A.R pleaded before us that in view of decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., reported in [2010] 327 ITR 543 wherein held th .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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