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

2016 (10) TMI 353 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (10) TMI 353 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1) - disallowance made under deeming provisions of section 94(7) - Held that:- We find that in the case of Reliance Petro product Pvt Ltd reported (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ), in which it has been held that in order to expose to the vigour of penal provision, the case is required to be strictly covered by the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further held that wrong claim made by the assessee which is not accepted 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

h is not only incorrect in law but also wholly without any basis and explanations furnished by him are not bonafide for making such claim. In that case, the penalty would be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our opinion the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd (supra). The facts of the case in Zoom Communications P Ltd (supra) are distinguishable from that of the assessee’s case, as in the case of assessee wrong cl .....

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 by : Ms Neelam Jadhav Respondent by : Shri Kailash Kanojia ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member This is an appeal by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, Mumbai dated 28.10.2014 pertaining to A.Y.2009-10. 2. The issue raised in grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 is against the confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the ld. CIT(A) as levied by the AO on the disallowance 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

xempt u/s 10(35) of the Act by the assessee treating the same as deemed interest under deeming provisions of section 94(7) of the Act and second ₹ 1,78,227/- which relates to cost of acquisition of Birla Sunlife Income Plus. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and show cause notice dated 12.11.2011 issued. The assessee replied that since the assessee has fully and truly made disclosure of all particulars qua the said items in the return of income and w .....

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 First Appellate Authority (FAA) who deleted the penalty on the disallowance of ₹ 1,78,227/- while upholding the penalty on second item of disallowance of ₹ 8,83,883/-and thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproduct Pvt Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC) on the ground that the explanation of the assessee was found to be true and bonafide. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee went up. Perusal of these facts clearly reveals that the assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars of loss qua the said short term capital loss of ₹ 8,83,883/- from mutual fund in the return of income and thus has not furnished inaccurate particulars qua the said Short term loss. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)9c) of the Act was not imposable in respect of ₹ 8,83,883/- being short term capital loss on mutual funds, the full particulars 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

see. We also note that the Short term capital loss on the mutual funds was disallowed by applying deeming provisions of section 94(8) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that in view of the bonafide error committed by the accountant and the facts being fully disclosed, the penalty was wrongly upheld by the ld. CIT(A) and deserved to be deleted. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 5. We find that in the case of Reliance Petro product Pvt Ltd reported (supra), in wh .....

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