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 →

ACIT CIRCLE-4 - BARODA Versus RINKI HYDRO CARBONS LTD

2016 (8) TMI 521 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - claim of capital expenditure - Held that:- he claims have been made by the assessee on the advice of the Chartered Accountant handling the work of the assessee company and that the claim is technically allowable as regards to scientific research and R & D expenses looking to the work of new product development undertaken by the assessee. All facts, including bills & list of parties from whom these capital assets were purchased, duly audited by the Chartered Acco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ax (Appeals) and cancelled the penalty. - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and cancelled the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 2614 of 2009 - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR KM PARIKH, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE OPPONENT : RULE SERVED ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) By way .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n cancelling the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c)? 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 21.12.1992 declaring an income of ₹ 1,15,800/- which was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act on 5.2.1993 accepting the returned income. Thereafter, regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 31.3.1995 and total income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 44,11,860/-. The penalty under dispute was le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that this is a gross case where penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been cancelled by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed serious error in cancelling the penalty order. He has further taken us to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), particularly, paragraph Nos. 6 to 6.3 giving reasons for confirming the penalty, which are reproduced hereinbelow: 6. I have carefully gone through .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

earch and seizure operation was carried out in the business premise of the appellant company on 19.4.1994 wherein the department could detect the concealment of income by the appellant company. In his statement, Shri S.K. Gandhi, Managing Director of the appellant company clearly admitted that his claim regarding expenditure amounting to ₹ 35.48 lacs is not correct and the company had not made any capital expenditure which was meant for research since the inception of the company. Further .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e second appeal by the Hon. ITAT, Ahmedabad. After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced that it is a clear case of tax evasion and concealment of income by the appellant company. Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act imposed by the assessing officer on this issue is confirmed. 6.2 Coming to the second issue regarding disallowance of R & D expenses, I find that Shri A.M. Saiyed, production supervisor in his statement has clearly admitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt penalty as levied by the assessing officer on this issue is confirmed. 6.3 Lastly, on the issue of excessive claim of deduction under section 80-HH and 80-I of the I.T. Act, I find that the appellant company had included income from other sources amounting to ₹ 14.78 lacs in its business profit and had not disclosed the fact that time limit for claiming deduction on the profit on the production of industrial oils and additives has expired. Therefore, it is a clear case where the appella .....

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