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 →

The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Rajkumar S. Singh

2016 (7) TMI 574 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Penalty u/s. 271AAA - assessment u/s 1543A pursuant to search - ITAT restricted part penalty - Held that:- We find that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding of fact that an amount of ₹ 13 lakhs (Rupees thirteen lakhs) and ₹ 23,276/( Rupees Twenty three thousand two hundred seventy six only) alone have not been explained so as to satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act save the above both have held that the other portions of statement made under Section 132(4) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2014 - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. Ashok Kotangale with Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Appellant Mr. Nishant Thakkar i/b. PDS Legal, for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 200809. 2 The Revenue urges the following questions o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se on the facts and is liable to be struck down? . 3 A search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act took place on 19th July, 2007, upon the respondent-assessee. During the course of search, the respondent-assessee offered an amount of ₹ 6.03 Crores as income in his statement made under Section 132(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed its return of income declaring income of ₹ 7.54 Crores. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Ac .....

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 Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 28th April, 2011, the CIT(A) partly allowed the respondent-assesee's appeal. It finds that the respondent-assessee had fully explained the manner in which the income was earned by its letter dated 14th September, 2007 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) and also a part of the record before the Assessing Officer. It also placed reliance upon the order sheet entry dated 8th December, 2009, stating that the heads of income had been correctly sta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

03,00,000/, while in the computation of income filed alongwith return of income offered was only ₹ 6,02,76,764/. Thus there was a shortage of income to the extent of ₹ 23,276/which has not been explained. In the circumstances, the CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the penalty keeping in view the fact that only the amounts of ₹ 13 lakhs and ₹ 23,376/do not satisfy Section 271AAA (2) of the Act. 6 The respondent-assessee accepted the order of .....

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