Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

THE PR COMMR OF INCOME-TAX-4, HYDERABAD Versus PLATINA PROPERTIES AND PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - addition made on recomputation of income under the head ‘income from house property' - Tribunal held that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of this addition, was not warranted - Held that:- An appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertained only if a substantial question of law arises for consideration. It is only if the appellants are able to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on was merely technical in nature. It is not even the case of Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, that the above referred findings of the Tribunal are either perverse or are based on no evidence. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act. - Decided against revenue - I.T.T.A.NO.544 OF 2015 - Dated:- 2-11-2015 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

search and seizure, action under Section 132 of the Act was taken in the group cases of Sujana Universal Industries Ltd., Hyderabad, during the financial year 2004-05. The respondents were assessed to tax under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act. An assessment order was passed on 22.12.2006 determining the total income as ₹ 65,60,469/- as against the returned loss of ₹ 99,73,735/-. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 52,85,744/- by recomputing the income 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

r concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration and that levy of penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was not justified. The CIT (Appeals) by his order dated 30.06.2015, followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, and held that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration; and, 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

t from the Statement of Taxable income, a copy of which was submitted; from the statement, it was clear that the assessee had disclosed all the facts, relating to the earning of income from property, in the return of income filed by them; no particulars of income from house property were suppressed; the addition of ₹ 52,85,744/- had been made on recomputation of income under the head income from house property ; as such, levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), with regards to the addition .....

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