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

Home › All Judgements › Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 26, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (renu_hingorani_50C_penalty.pdf)


Failure to voluntarily apply s. 50C does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The assessee sold a flat for Rs. 63 lakhs and offered capital gains on that basis while its stamp duty valuation was Rs. 72 lakhs. The difference of Rs. 9 lakhs was assessed by the AO u/s 50C which the assessee accepted. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

The AO had not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition was made purely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The AO had not doubted the agreement or given any finding that the actual sale consideration was more than the sale consideration stated in the sale agreement. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly, there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Related Posts:

  • Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee before us is closely involved with the transaction and it is inconceivable that the assessee will have no direct knowledge of the owners of the underlying company and settlors of the trust which has her, as she herself puts it, as beneficiary of such a huge amount. This…
  • Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…
  • Kaushik N. Tanna vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since, in the present case, the order has been pronounced one day beyond 90 days prescribed under the Rules, we respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble High Court discussed above, recall the order dated 09.11.2017 without going into the merits of the other grounds raised in the application, for…
  • Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened…
  • Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is clear from the above decisions that in case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases
  • M/s. Deekay Gears vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before…

Related Judgements

  1. New Shailaja CHS vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee, a Co.op Housing Society became entitled, by virtue of the Development Control Regulations, to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and the same were sold by it for a price to a builder and the question arose whether the transaction of sale receipt could be taxed, HELD that…
  2. Dharmasingh Popat vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Though in general law, a firm and its partners are not distinct, this is subject to statutory exceptions. Under the scheme of assessment of firms applicable from AY. 1993-94 a firm is treated as an independent entity and the expenditure by way of remuneration, interest, commission etc. paid to…
  3. ACIT vs. Dinesh K. Mehta HUF (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument of the assessee that to constitute a hedging transaction u/s 43(5)(b), a transaction need not be in the same shares held by the assessee as inventory or that the value of hedging transactions should be equal to or less than the value of inventory held by the…
  4. ACIT vs. UE Trade Corporation (India) (ITAT Delhi) 

    Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only…
  5. Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    S. 254 (2) can be invoked only if there is a mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal u/s 254(1). As the MA filed by the assessee is against an order passed u/s 254(2) it has to be rejected CIT vs. ITAT 196 ITR 838 (Ori) followedRead more…

Leave a Reply

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

*