Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Versus M/s. Otis Elevator Co. (I) Ltd.

2016 (11) TMI 803 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

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 having disclosed the income on dormant contracts in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oncealment 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 impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 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

ee 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 ₹ 156.05 crores in his order in quantum proceedi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd 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 liability were in fact offered to tax during 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

e 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 complete the assessment for the subject assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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