Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd (Allahabad High Court)

CIT vs. Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd (Allahabad High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (jindal_aleo_manali_271_1_c_115JB.pdf)


No s. 271(1)(c) penalty for concealment under normal provisions if s. 115JB book profits assessed

No doubt, there was concealment but that had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. The assessment as per the normal procedure was, however, not acted upon. On the contrary, it is the deemed income assessed u/s 115JB which has become the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. Tax is thus paid on the income assessed u/s 115JB. Hence, when the computation was made u/s 115JB, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable (CIT vs. Aleo Manali Hydro Power (attached) & Nalwa Sons Investment 327 ITR 543 (Del) (SLP dismissed) followed).

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Saumya Leasing (Bombay High Court) 

    Deduction under section 80M can be claimed even in respect of the interim dividend declared for the succeeding financial year before the due date.
  2. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court) 

    Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section…
  3. Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) 

    While computing normal profits which do not involve Ch VI-A relief, an assessee is entitled not to claim depreciation. However, where deduction under Ch VI-A is claimed depreciation is mandatory. Read more ›
  4. CIT vs. Rampur Engineering (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) 

    The judgement of the Division Bench in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the authority initiating the penalty proceedings had not recorded its satisfaction regarding concealment of…
  5. Clifford Chance UK vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The fiction of s. 9 is subject to the territorial nexus doctrine and income that arises out of a transaction requires to be apportioned to each of the territories. Whatever is payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for services would not always come within…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*