Home › › Page 7

Search Results For: 271(1)(c)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1)(a): Law on time limit for passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) explained. Challenge by assessee to validity of penalty order entertained in Dept's appeal despite lack of C. O. /cross-appeal by assessee

On a combined reading of Section 275(1)(a) along with its proviso it becomes clear that main section 275(1)(a) talks of a period of six months from the date on which the order is received by commissioner and main section also talks of orders passed by commissioner appeals as well as by tribunal talk whereas the proviso which is applicable from 01.06.2003 talks about orders passed by Commissioner Appeals only and here, the period of limitation for passing penalty order is one year from the date Commissioner receives Tribunal order

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 25, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Immunity against penalty under Expl 5 is available even in return is not filed provided a statement is made during the search, explaining the manner of deriving the income and due tax & interest thereon is paid

In order to get the benefit of immunity under clause(2) of explanation5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, it is not necessary to file the return before the due date provided that the assessee had made a statement, during the search and explained the manner in which the surrendered amount was derived, and paid tax as well as interest on the surrendered amount

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
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
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
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
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
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 ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Law laid down in Zoom Comm 327 ITR 510 (Del) does not apply if claim of assessee is bona fide and not in defiance of the law

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the assessee cannot be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Revised ROI filed after issue of s. 143(2) notice amounts to voluntary disclosure if AO has not sought specific particulars in the notice

Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice. Hence the mistake in the Long term Capital gain could not have come to the notice of the AO at that point of time, meaning thereby, it should be construed that the assessee has declared the higher amount of Long term capital gain voluntarily upon its detection

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied for an assessment made in a cursory & summary manner

A perusal of the assessment order demonstrates that it has been passed in a cursory and summary manner, de hors of any detail, except for mentioning that certain figures had not tallied, no analysis whatsoever or reasons leading to the disallowance, are given by the AO. AO simply says that the assessee has filed reply explaining the discrepancies but does not give any reason as to why the explanation cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the penalty order the charge on which penalty is being levied has been specified. Such an assessment, in our view cannot be a basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C)

Read more ›