Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
From the Courts »
 Order of a Four-Member Appellate Authority constituted under Chartered Accountants Act is Valid: Delhi HC
 Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court)
 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-op Society Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-I Vs. Smt. Ritu Singal
 Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-17
 How you can gift and still save tax on top of HRA, tuition fee, more Income Tax Returns (ITR) filing top hack

G. K. Properties Pvt. Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
November, 10th 2014

S. 271(1)(c): Apart from falsity of the explanation, the department must have cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that assessee has consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income

As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khode Easwar 83 ITR 369 the penalty proceedings being penal in character, the Revenue itself has to establish that the receipt of the amount undisputedly constitute income of assessee. Apart from falsity of the explanation given by assessee, the department must have before levying penalty, cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that assessee has concealed particulars of income or had deliberately furnished in accurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount is taxable receipt. No doubt, in the original assessment proceedings A.O. can take an opinion that claim of capital gains cannot be allowed and has to be taxed under the head “Business” but that is not enough for considering penalty proceedings. Assessee has not found the explanation of assessee to be false in assessment.

He only deferred on the basis of the memorandum and articles of assessee company and also the fact that very high price was received by assessee at the time of sale. These factors may be enough for bringing amount to tax as business income but cannot establish that assessee has consciously “concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished in accurate particulars of income”. Ld. CIT(A) also in our opinion, has wrongly considered that assessee has falsified accounts ignoring the fact that at the time of purchase way back in 3-4 years before, assessee could not have imagined that price will go up and assessee would get a good price for the land purchased. The fact that assessee has shown lands as assets in the books of accounts consistently cannot be brushed aside just because A.O. took a different view which was upheld by ITAT. On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that it is only a difference of opinion on a debatable issue which does not lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars (CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), Sidhartha Enterprises 322 ITR 82 (P&H) & Rajeev Bhatara 360 ITR 121 (P&H) followed)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

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