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

2016 (5) TMI 234 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (5) TMI 234 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - excess claim of cost of acquisition - Held that:- The excess claim of cost of acquisition made by the assessee was not detected by the Assessing Officer, but the assessee had suo motu and voluntarily brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by letter dated 17.09.2013. The assessee had furnished all the relevant documents which would show the share of the assessee in the said land, e.g., the copy of sale deed of the said land .....

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 would not automatically invite penalty so long as the claim is bonafide and genuine, the rejection of such claim would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the light of above, delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2949/Ahd/2015 - Dated:- 18-2-2016 - Shri George George K., Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri S. N. Divatia, AR For the Respondent : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iness of organizer and developer of construction schemes. Return of Income was filed for the relevant assessment year on 20.07.2011, declaring total income of ₹ 5,64,11,290/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee noticed that while computing the Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on sale of land bearing survey No.635 at Village Uvarasad, he had taken the full cost of acquisition though he had onehalf share therein. This had resulted into understatement of STCG by ₹ 5 .....

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 CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 4. Aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty by the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:- 1.1 The order passed u/s 250 on 19.08.2015 for AY 2011-12 by CIT(A)-10 Abad upholding the penalty of ₹ 1,62,420/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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