{"id":4889,"date":"2012-05-11T08:13:17","date_gmt":"2012-05-11T08:13:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4889"},"modified":"2012-05-11T08:13:17","modified_gmt":"2012-05-11T08:13:17","slug":"cit-vs-nalwa-sons-investment-ltd-supreme-court-despite-concealment-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-s-115jb-book-profits-assessed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-nalwa-sons-investment-ltd-supreme-court-despite-concealment-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-s-115jb-book-profits-assessed\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (nalwa_sons_SLP_dismissal.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

Despite concealment, no s. 271(1)(c) penalty if s. 115JB book profits assessed
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

For AY 2001-02, the assessee filed a ROI declaring loss of Rs.43.47 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and book profits of Rs.3.86 crores u\/s 115JB. The AO assessed a loss at Rs.36.95 crores as per normal provisions and book profits at Rs.4.01 crores. As there was a reduction in the loss under the normal provisions owing to various additions and disallownaces, the AO levied penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) in accordance with with Explanation 4 & Gold Coin<\/a><\/strong> 304 ITR 308 (SC). Before the High Court, the assessee argued that even if there was a concealment u\/s 271(1)(c) with respect to the normal assessment, the same was not relevant because the assessee\u2019s income was assessed u\/s 115JB. The High Court accepted the plea and held that as the s. 115JB \u201cbook profits<\/em>\u201d were by a legal fiction deemed to be the \u201ctotal income\u201d, the furnishing of wrong particulars had no effect on \u201cthe amount of tax sought to be evaded<\/em>\u201d as defined in Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c). On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD:<\/p>\n

Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nNalwa<\/strong> is followed in Ruchi Strips<\/a><\/strong>. See Ushdev Intl<\/strong> 129 ITD 167 (Mum) for the effect of MAT credit\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For AY 2001-02, the assessee filed a ROI declaring loss of Rs.43.47 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and book profits of Rs.3.86 crores u\/s 115JB. The AO assessed a loss at Rs.36.95 crores as per normal provisions and book profits at Rs.4.01 crores. As there was a reduction in the loss under the normal provisions owing to various additions and disallownaces, the AO levied penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) in accordance with with Explanation 4 & Gold Coin<\/a><\/strong> 304 ITR 308 (SC). Before the High Court, the assessee argued that even if there was a concealment u\/s 271(1)(c) with respect to the normal assessment, the same was not relevant because the assessee\u2019s income was assessed u\/s 115JB. The High Court accepted the plea and held that as the s. 115JB \u201cbook profits<\/em>\u201d were by a legal fiction deemed to be the \u201ctotal income\u201d, the furnishing of wrong particulars had no effect on \u201cthe amount of tax sought to be evaded<\/em>\u201d as defined in Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c). On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}