Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Improvement Trust Versus The D.C.I.T., Jagadhri

2016 (5) TMI 807 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - claim of exemption under section 10(20) - Held that:- The explanation of the assessee with regard to his claim of exemption under section 10(20) of the Act is that the same is based on a bonafide belief and on certain other cases of the assessees carrying on the same type of activities, these judgments have been referred to by him before the learned CIT (Appeals) also. This is a case of a claim of exemption made by the assessee which was ultimately denied to it. .....

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 argument of the assessee that if it had taken registration under section 12A of the Act, the whole income would be eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act, is of no consequence. However, we find that the argument of the assessee that it is a Government organization and no malafide can be imposed on it, is a relevant consideration while levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Rental incomes shown by the assessee under the head .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Tribunal, whereby the dispute regarding the rental income to be taxed under the head 'income from house property' or under the head 'business income' are considered. In view of this, we observe that it may be a case of making additions or disallowances but not a case of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty levied by him under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA .....

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 informed that the appeal is delayed by 15 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed in this regard. It was stated in the application that the assessee being a statutory body, the appeal was forwarded for the approval of higher authorities, which took substantial time and thereafter the counsel took about two weeks' time to prepare and send the appeal for signature of the authorized signatory. An affidavit of Shri Kewal Krishan Jain, Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nnot be any malafide on its part. Further, it was stated that on an ill advice of the advisors, it has not obtained registration under section 12A of the Act, otherwise it could have availed exemption under section 11 of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come in appeal before us. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted bef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. Further, it was stated that since the assessee is a local authority, the submission of inaccurate particulars does not apply since the assessee was not to gain any peculiar benefit by submitting inaccurate particulars. Further, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana 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

he Act and also by claiming the rental income to be its business income in order to claim expenses out of the same. Reliance was placed on he judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Splender Construction 352 ITR 588. As per this judgment, it was stated that since the issues in quantum have been decided by the I.T.A.T. against the assessee, the issues do not remain debatable, therefore, penalty has to be levied on the same. 7. We have heard the learned representatives of both 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

f exemption under section 10(20) of the Act is that the same is based on a bonafide belief and on certain other cases of the assessees carrying on the same type of activities, these judgments have been referred to by him before the learned CIT (Appeals) also. This is a case of a claim of exemption made by the assessee which was ultimately denied to it. Making of a claim, which is not sustained, does not amount to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance placed by the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version