Search Results For: penalty


ACIT vs. Cecilia Haresh Chaganlal (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Explanation that bona fide mistake was committed on advice of CA is a reasonable one as per Explanation 1B of s. 271(1) and does not attract penalty

When there is no attempt on the part of the assessee to show the Long Term Capital Gain in a different category then merely because a concessional rate of tax was applied in the revised return does not ifso facto

G. K. Properties Pvt. Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 16, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Apart from falsity of the explanation, the department must have cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that assessee has consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income

As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khode Easwar 83 ITR 369 the penalty proceedings being penal in character, the Revenue itself has to establish that the receipt of the amount undisputedly constitute income of

ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
No S. 14A/ Rule 8D Disallowance if accounts not examined. Consent fee paid to SEBI is not penalty for infraction of law

Re Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D (i) It is now settled principle that the assessing officer has to examine the disallowance made by the assessee by having regard to the accounts of the assessee and only thereafter the

Times Guaranty Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Wrong claim for depreciation by showing a finance or loan transaction as a lease transaction attracts penalty

(i) The detailed findings of the AO, the assessee not agitating the findings of the AO in quantum proceedings, no plea of factual discrepancies during quantum proceedings and appeals, even no such plea before AO during penalty proceedings and no

New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
What is accrual of income. The word "conceal" inherently and per-se refers to an element of mens rea, albeit the expression "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" is much wider in scope

(i) We need not refer to the case law on the subject, what is income or accrual of income, except by referring to the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Dinesh Kumar Goel, (2011) 331

Mohd. Khasim vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: block period
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
There is a perceptional difference in the operative force of section 271(1)(c) vis-à-vis section 158BFA(2). The charge against the assessee u/s 158BFA(2) could be, why they failed to compute true disclosed income out of the seized material.

On a comparative study of the scheme of assessment of undisclosed income for the purpose of block period, penalty impossible u/s 271(1)(i)(c) and penalty impossible on the undisclosed income in the block period, we find that income for the block

Mulla Associates vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty for s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance is permissible

The law, in our humble view, would hold even where the disallowance leading to the variation between the assessed and returned incomes is u/s. 40(a)(ia), being independent of the provision where -under the same (disallowance) is effected. That is, the

Top