Search Results For: penalty


Raibareilly District Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. DIT (ITAT Lucknow)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271FA: As DIT is of the same rank as the CIT(A), an appeal against the DIT's order can only be filed before the ITAT even though s. 253(1) does not refer to s. 271FA

Though there is no specific reference of the order passed under section 271FA of the Act by the Director of Income-tax in section 253(1) of the Act for the purpose of filing an appeal against the said order, but an analogy drawn from the reading of section 253(1) of the Act is that the order passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax or an Officer who is equal in rank can only be challenged before the Tribunal, which is higher in rank

Fortune Polymers Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied for an assessment made in a cursory & summary manner

A perusal of the assessment order demonstrates that it has been passed in a cursory and summary manner, de hors of any detail, except for mentioning that certain figures had not tallied, no analysis whatsoever or reasons leading to the disallowance, are given by the AO. AO simply says that the assessee has filed reply explaining the discrepancies but does not give any reason as to why the explanation cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the penalty order the charge on which penalty is being levied has been specified. Such an assessment, in our view cannot be a basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C)

ACIT vs. Sunland Metal Recycling (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C/ 271(1)(c): Even if s. 50C is applicable, computing capital gain de hors it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the valuation of the stamp duty authority for levy of stamp duty. The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied

Schrader Duncan Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the High Court admits the appeal u/s 260A, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot survive

When the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive

Amrut Tubewell Company vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1986-87
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) & 273(2)(a): Penalty cannot be mechanically levied. Cogent reasons have to be given

Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) empower the AO to impose penalty on an assessee in a case, where, (1) there is concealment of income or (2) conscious attempt to provide the particulars of income which is untrue. Meaning thereby, the AO

CIT vs. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Before proceeding to the Explanation below s. 271 and putting the responsibility on the assessee, it is necessary for the AO to first demonstrate that the assessee's explanation or conduct is not reasonable on human probabilities, or that it was in the nature of violating settled legal positions. If the explanation is not fanciful, baseless or unacceptable, penalty cannot be levied

A legal contention raised bonafide by the assessee claiming the amounts to be capital receipt, only because the same was not accepted, by itself cannot be said to be act of fraud or gross or wilful negligence. Merely because the

Mitsu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 16, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1992-93
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): In the absence of a clear-cut finding by the AO as to whether it is a case of 'concealment' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars', penalty cannot be levied

it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income have been furnished by the assessee. In the absence

ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income

Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the

DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty initiated without specifying whether it is for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars it invalid

(i) It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. There are two

Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied for a bona fide "wrong" claim which is not a "false" claim

The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue further. Considering the explanation offered

Top