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 →

DCIT, Circle-6, Ahmedaad Versus Viramgam Mercantile Coop. Bank Ltd.

2017 (2) TMI 403 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In the light of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the quantum appeal, as the quantum addition relating to disallowance of gratuity has been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench, we are of the view that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowance of gratuity payment has been rightly deleted by ld. CIT(A). - As regards disallowance on depreciation on investment the matter had been set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that penalty u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hri S. N. Divetia, AR ORDER PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member. This appeal of Revenue for Asst. Year 2008-09 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XI, Ahmedabad, dated 17.09.2013 vide appeal no.CIT(A)-XI/117/ACIT Cir.6/12-13, arising out of order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) framed on 27.06.2012 by ACIT, Cir.6, Ahmedabad. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue :- i) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts on deleting levying on penalty of ₹ 1 .....

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 on 12/07/2008 declaring total income of ₹ 23,45,990/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after making certain additions of ₹ 49,49,950/- and assessing the income at ₹ 69,80,008/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the quantum appeal ld. CIT(A) partly allowed assessee s appeal by confirming addition of ₹ 48,64,950/- as against ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder dated 12.09.2014 deleted the disallowance of ₹ 3,15,933/- and as regards the second disallowance of depreciation on investment of ₹ 45,49,019/- issue was remitted back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. 3. On the other hand after the order of ld. CIT(A) on quantum addition penalty proceedings were initiated and on the addition of ₹ 48,64,950/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A) penalty @ 100% of tax was levied at ₹ 15,03,269/-. 4. Aggrieved against the order of A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y due to the fact that the payment has come from the account of the appellant maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India. The disallowance has been made on purely technical reasons. It is not the case of the assessing officer that any crucial facts have been hidden by the appellant or that the claim was not bonafide. I am therefore of the view that the levy of penalty on the issue of disallowance of gratuity payment is not justified and deserves to be deleted. With regard to levy of pen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nfirmed addition' but there are contrary decisions from other judicial forums. The courts have held that where the issue involved is of debatable nature and the claim made by the assessee is bona fide, then no concealment penalty is leviable in such cases. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of GEETA PRINTS (P) LTD. vsi ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2012) 247 CTR (Guj) 620. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed the material placed before us and gone through the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench relating to quantum addition in the case of assessee. In this appeal Revenue has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of ₹ 15,03,270/- imposed by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the impugned penalty of ₹ 15,03,270/- was imposed by ld. Assessing Officer on the following two additions confirmed by ld. CIT(A):- i) Disallowance on gratuity payment 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

e with guidelines of RBI and when the payment was made to LIC of India, Assessee had not claimed the deduction but had claimed the same when the actual payment of gratuity was made to the concerned employee and therefore it is not a case of claim of double deduction. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to controvert the submissions of the Assessee. Further Revenue has also not placed any material on record to show that Assessee has claimed the deduction of expenses when 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

ord. The issue in the present case is with respect to the loss in value of investment in mutual funds arising on account of the difference between the cost of units and the NAV on the last day of the accounting year on account of valuation . Before us the Id. A.R. has submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the Assessee in view of the decisions cited by the Id. A.R. We find that the aforesaid decisions were not before CIT(A) when the issue was decided by him. We therefore feel that 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