Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
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: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV (Bombay High Court)
 Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association vs. UOI (Rajasthan High Court)
  H.T. MEDIA LIMITED Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), New Delhi Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. Index Securities Private Limited
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Ahmedabad Constitution For The Period From 18/09/2017 To 22/09/2017
  M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
  Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Iv Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Iv Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.
 Jcb India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax &
 Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax & ORS

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 2017 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