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 →

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus M/s Hariom Steels (P) Ltd.

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - sales to parties covered under Section 40A (2)(b) - Held that:- Assessee cannot be held guilty for non-disclosure of income, which was determined by invoking discretionary jurisdiction under Section 40A (2)(b) of the 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

of the income, the penalty cannot be imposed on account of addition of income by applying the deeming provisions. - Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in removing the penalty imposed by the As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der of the Tribunal dated 20 August 2015. The only point arising in this appeal is regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of sales to parties covered under Section 40A (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. It appears that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

40A (2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the value of the difference of the scrap sold was added to the income of the assessee and accordingly, penalty of ₹ 46,25,000/- was imposed under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal by the impugned order has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re applied in assessing the income, the provisions of imposing penalty would not be attracted. In S.V. Kalyanam Vs. Income Tax Officer (2011) 237 CTR (Mad) 491, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that where additions are made 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

disclosure and as such it is not proper to impose penalty under Section 271 of the Act. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P. Rojes (2013) 260 CTR (Mad) 397, again a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) .....

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