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:

  • CIT vs. Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) settles the legal position in favour of the Assessees. The Supreme Court, while affirming the judgment of the Bombay High Court, approved the decision of the Gujarat…
  • 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…
  • Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As all of us are traversing through one of the toughest patch of time, facing the Covid 19 pandemic, and the poorer sections of society are hardest hit. It is, therefore, all the more necessary for every employer company to take care of its employees. We find that in view…
  • ACIT vs. Subhodh Menon (ITAT Mumbai) Section 56(2)(vii) does not apply to bonafide business transaction. As explained hereinabove, shares were issued by the company to comply with a covenant in the loan agreement with State Bank of India which required the promoters to increase the total net worth of the company to Rs. 150 crores by…
  • Sudhir Menon vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In view of consistent view of jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court, in the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Accordingly, this notice has no…
  • Deepak B Shah vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that addition has been made by the AO U/s 69A of the Act to justify the addition on account of peak balance. We agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR that it is sine qua non for invoking section 69A of the IT Act., the assessee must…

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 *

*