Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

CIT vs. Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
October, 03rd 2014

S. 271(1)(c): Non-offering of stamp duty/DVO value as consideration for capital gains does not attract penalty if facts are on record

The assessee was the owner of office premises which were sold in AY 2004-05 for Rs. 2 crore. The AO noted that the stamp duty valuation of the property was Rs.3,72,42,000 and that the DVO had valued the property at Rs. 2,70,03,920. The value adopted by the DVO was taken as the consideration for sale of the property u/s 50C and capital gains was assessed on that basis. The assessee accepted the same. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This was upheld by the CIT(A) though deleted by the Tribunal. Before the High Court, the department relied on Chuharmal vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC) and argued that even though s. 50C created a liability for deemed income, still penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

The Tribunal finding that the case was not one of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or of concealment inasmuch as there was a registered sale deed and the consideration was mentioned therein cannot be faulted. Also, the DVO determined the value at a figure from that of the stamp value. The larger question posed for consideration as to whether s. 271(1)(c) penalty can apply to deemed income is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Organic SEO Outsourcing Organic Search Engine Optimization Outsourcing Organic Website SEO Organic SEO India Website SEO India Organic Search Engine Optimization India Organic Internet SEO India Organic Web

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions