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 →

GE Capital Services India Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In the case of K. C. Builders v. Asst. CIT [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court] which has authoritatively laid down that where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied has been deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive. We find that no Departmental appeal has been filed assailing the relief granted by the Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Departmental Representative ORDER Diva Singh (Judicial Member) 1. By way of the present appeal filed by the assessee the correctness of the order dated December 24, 2010, of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, pertaining to the 2000-01 assessment year has been assailed on the grounds that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer has wrongly been upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. The learned authorised representative relying upo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ccepted the quantum order passed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, it was his submission that while deciding the appeal the grievance posed by the Revenue towards the finding in the quantum order may be recorded. The learned authorised representative objected to this argument and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax- Departmental representative did not press the issue further. However, permission to file written submission was sought. Subsequently written submissions dated Fe .....

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 at in the quantum proceedings was not accepted by the Revenue and when this fact is read along with the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), the assessee does not have any case. Referring to the facts of Reliance Petroproducts it was submitted that the assessee therein had duly filed an explanation giving reasons for making its claim and having filed the explanation the court held that the onus thereafter shifts to the Revenue .....

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 present appeal is concerned. In the present proceedings, in the face of the addition having been deleted it was submitted the arguments have no merit. The decision of the apex court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) sought to be distinguished on facts has no relevance as the assessee is not relying on the said decision. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered was not true or lacking in bona fide as the relief is being sought .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

higher forum in such an eventuality the Revenue may find itself in a predicament. Accordingly it was his submission that he may be allowed to argue in the penalty proceedings how the issue cannot be said to have been conclusively decided in favour of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. These arguments of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative were again strongly opposed by the learned authorised representative who stated that it a mere waste of time of the court. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ported by the decision of the apex court in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 6366 to 6368 of 2003 in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) dated March 23, 2015. Accordingly the arguments of the Revenue have no merit. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find on a perusal of the penalty order dated March 21, 2009, that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed by the Assessing Officer on account of the following addit .....

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 appellate proceedings, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issues addressed in (a), (b) and (c) above quashed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and on the issue addressed in (d) the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was upheld. We find from the record that in the quantum proceedings amongst other grounds, the assessee had raised ground No. 5 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which reads as under : "5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of 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

r section 37, all expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business are allowed in the computation of income unless they are of capital nature or of personal nature. There is no intention of deferred revenue expenditure in the Income-tax Act. In the case of Madras Industrial as relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue on account of the fact that the assessee itself had claimed proportionate amount in 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

 

 

 

 

 

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