Home › › Page 5

Search Results For: furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Failure to apply s. 50C and offer capital gains as per the stamp value does not constitute concealment/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

For application of section 50C of the Act, it is not necessary for the A.O. to examine whether actually assessee has received anything over and above the amount mentioned in the sale deed as he simply has to go by the valuation adopted by the SRO. However, as far as imposition of penalty is concerned, there must be positive evidence before the A.O. to conclude that assessee has received the amount as valued by SRO for stamp duty purpose. Unless there are positive evidence to indicate receipt of on money to the extent of valuation made by SRO by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Claim that compensation received from foreign party is a capital receipt, though wrong on merits, does not attract penalty if assessee disclosed facts in ROI and was supported by a legal opinion

These facts are sufficient to distinguish the present case from the facts in CIT Delhi v. Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 (Del) where the Court observed that apart from a making wrong claim, the Assessee did so not on the basis of any advice given to it by an auditor or tax expert. Even in MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court held on facts that the Assessee there had no intention to declare its true income and no explanation was offered by it for the concealment of income. In the facts of the present case, the Court is satisfied that no error of law was committed either by the CIT (A) or the ITAT in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not attracted. This was not a case of an Assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Offering interest on maturity on Bonds as “long-term capital gains” instead of as “income from other sources” is a mere change in the head of income and a case of bona fide mistake which does not attract penalty

The interest of all the three years was offered to tax in the year of maturity and not year-wise. This is just change in the head of income under which the income is offered to tax. The taxation of the receipt is changed to the head of income ‘other sources’ from the head of income ‘capital gain’. The explanation filed by the assessee is bona fide. This is a case of a bona fide mistake on part of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Claim that interest income is eligible for s. 10B exemption, though upheld by the ITAT for an earlier year, is so implausible that it attracts penalty for concealment/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

We, in view of the foregoing, find no merit in the assessee’s case. It, to our mind, has not adduced any explanation, much less substantiated it, except for a bald assertion (i.e., of the said interest income as being a part of the assessee’s business income). The reliance on the decisions by the hon’ble jurisdictional high court, which we have found to be in fact supportive of the Revenue’s case, with the law in the matter being, in fact, well settled, is only a false plea or a ruse. Reliance on the decision by the tribunal for a subsequent year (AY 2000-01) is, under the circumstances, again, completely misplaced. A plausible explanation towards its’ claim/s saves penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), in view of, again, the settled law in the matter which though is completely missing in the present case

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): The rigors of penalty provisions cannot be diluted only because a small number of cases are picked up for scrutiny. No penalty can be levied unless if assessee's conduct is "dishonest, malafide and amounting concealment of facts". The AO must render the "conclusive finding" that there was "active concealment" or "deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars"

Conditions under Section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty can be imposed. Mr.Chhotaray tried to widen the scope of the appeal by submitting that the decision of the Apex Court should be interpreted in such a manner that there is no scope of misuse especially since minuscule number of cases are picked up for scrutiny. Because small number of cases are picked up for scrutiny does not mean that rigors of the provision are diluted. Whether a particular person has concealed income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars, would depend on facts of each case

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Surrender of income after questionnaire does not mean it is not voluntary. If surrender is on condition of no penalty and assessment is based only on surrender and not on evidence, penalty cannot be levied

At the time of surrender itself contention of not initiating any penalty proceedings was there. No additional matter was discovered to prove that there was concealment of income. The AO has included the amount of share capital in the total income of assessee merely on the basis of assessee’s declaration/surrender. The AO did not point out or refer any evidence or material to show that the amount of share capital received by the assessee was bogus. It is also not the case of the revenue that material was found at the assessee’s premises to indicate that share application money received was an arranged affair to accommodate assessee’s unaccounted money. Thus there was no detection by the AO that share capital was not genuine. The surrender of share capital after issue of the notice u/s.143(2) could not lead to any inference that it was not voluntary.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(e)/ 271(1)(c): S. 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision and has to be strictly construed. Assessee can discharge onus by pointing to 'preponderance of probability' and If explanation is not found to be false then, even if amounts are assessed as 'deemed dividend', penalty cannot be levied

The degree of proof necessary under the Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) can be discharged by the assessee by pointing out the factors and the material in his favour, because explanation merely raises a rebuttal presumption to which assessee can always discharge his onus by pointing out the factors relating to preponderance of probability

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Mistake in claiming deduction of interest expenditure despite s. 43B attracts penalty

The assessee is a regular assessee, well serviced by tax and audit professionals. The latter issuing a disclaimer for being unable to state the amount disallowable u/s.43B in the absence of the relevant information, defeats its case of it being an inadvertent mistake. On what basis, then, one may ask, was the deduction claimed?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Disallowance of expenditure for failure to deduct TDS does not attract penalty

The disallowance of expenditure was attracted due to non-deduction of TDS and it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Disclosing income but classifying it under a wrong head amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars and attracts penalty

The assessee’s argument supra of the same being only a differential treatment of the very same, i.e., rental, income, so that there has been thus neither any concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, though appealing, is misconceived. The reason is simple. Yes, the assessee has apparently stated the quantum and nature of the income correctly. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not only qua the misstatement of fact/s but also of law

Read more ›