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 →

Rajesh Mulchand Joshi Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward–12 (2) (4) , Mumbai

2016 (4) TMI 1151 - ITAT MUMBAI

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - excess deduction claimed on account of interest on borrowed capital in respect of self– occupied property - Held that:- The assessee has paid the interest amount claimed as deduction. It may be a fact that due to oversight or ignorance of relevant statutory provision, the assessee had claimed the excess deduction on account of payment of interest payment of the self–occupied property. However, for claiming such deduction, no malafide intention can be imputed to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see : Hiten Vasant For the Revenue : Sanjeev Kashyap ORDER Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) Instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 10th October 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-23, Mumbai, confirming imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for an amount of ₹ 89,950, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts are, assessee an individual filed his return of income for the impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

account of interest on borrowed capital is ₹ 1.50 lakh. He, therefore, restricted the deduction to ₹ 1.50 lakh while disallowing the excess claim made by the assessee. On the basis of disallowance made, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing A notice to show cause. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee requested for dropping the penalty proceeding but the Assessi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate attempt to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has made payment of interest of ₹ 4,91,571. Hence, the mistake being a bonafide one should not lead to imposition of penalty. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC); ii) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. v/s CIT, [20 .....

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