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

2016 (11) TMI 803 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 803 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty under Section 271(1)(C) - Held that:- Merely because an addition has been made during the course of the assessment proceedings would not ipso facto lead to imposition of the penalty as the condition precedent for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is filing of inaccurate particulars of income and / or concealment of income before the penalty can be imposed. The explanation offered by the respondent assessee for not havin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

income and it is certainly not a question of concealment of income and / or filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the respondent assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 758 of 2014 - Dated:- 15-11-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 21st August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impu .....

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 271(1)C of the Act? 3. The respondent assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of elevators / lifts. In the subject assessment year, the respondent assessee had declared an income of ₹ 89.04 crores. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act added a sum of ₹ 7.35 crores on account of advances received on dormant contracts prior to 2004. Finally, the Assessing Officer determined the taxable income of the respondent assessee at ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer did not accept the above contention and imposed a penalty of ₹ 2.47 crores under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the respondent assessee. This for concealing income by filing inaccurate particulars. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By order dated 30th June, 2011 the CIT(A) has rendered a finding of fact that the amounts received as advances in respect of dormant contracts and shown as current li .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee and deleted the penalty of ₹ 2.47 crores under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue of penalty in appeal to the Tribunal. On consideration of the facts, the impugned order of the Tribunal held that the advances relating to the dormant contracts were offered to tax in the subsequent assessment years even before any inquiry was initiated by the Assessing Officer to comp .....

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