Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

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 download the file in pdf format
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 question of levy or otherwise of penalty would have to be necessarily examined w.r.t. the assessee’s case for the claim of expenditure in view of non-obstante clause of s.40(a)(ia), as indeed would be the case for any other provision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*