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 →

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1) , Chandigarh Versus M/s Punjab Sate Federation of Coop. Sugar Mills Limited, Chandigarh

2015 (10) TMI 2497 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of capital gain tax, property tax and fringe benefit tax not an allowable deduction - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- It is observed that the assessee is a Cooperative society and an undertaking to Government of Punjab. It is claimed that the assessee had engaged a professional for preparing and filing of the income tax return. It is stated that assessee has submitted revised computation during the course of assessment proceedings and there was no intention .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat anyone had been benefitted by not adding back the impugned amount, since the assessee is an undertaking of Government of Punjab. In our opinion, the order of CIT(A) is based on appreciation of facts and therefore, we decline to interfere with the order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 838/Chd/2014 - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant: Sh. Vivek Nangia ORDER 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

8377; 9,77,46,340/-. The Assessing officer noticed that assessee had claimed expenses for capital gain tax, property and fringe benefit tax in the profit and loss account. According to Assessing officer, the claim of capital gain tax, property tax and fringe benefit tax is not an allowable deduction. However, in the computation of income, the assessee itself added back the fridge benefit tax amounting to ₹ 1,88,721/-. Therefore, the Assessing officer made the addition of ₹ 2,65,03,00 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling. There was no intention to conceal the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing officer has straightway rejected the contention of the assessee and imposed a penalty of ₹ 61,13,801/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. On appeal, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, observing as under:- 5.2 The Ld, Counsel has explained that the income tax return of the appellant wa .....

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