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

2016 (7) TMI 574 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 574 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 por .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l questions of law - Decided against revenue - 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. .....

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 impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse 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 Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d offered an undisclosed income of ₹ 6.03,00,000/, 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 T .....

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