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: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: TDS :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
From the Courts »
 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd.
 Akum Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited Through: Director Shri. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns „n? Petals
 Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd (Delhi High Court)
  State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court)
 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi
 Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Vishwa Hindu Parishad
 ITAT Proposes Important Changes To Tribunal Rules
 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

CIT vs. M/s. Gem Granites (Karnataka) (Madras High Court)
December, 11th 2013

S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied if the assessee discharges the primary burden by a cogent explanation and the AO is unable to rebut it. MAK Data (SC) explained

Pursuant to a search conducted u/s 132 it was revealed that the assessee had “on-money” transactions in real estate dealings. The assessee accepted the “on-money” but claimed that it was taxable only on completion of the projects under the ‘completed contract method‘. The assessee’s claim was rejected by all the authorities including the High Court. In the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings, the assessee claimed that there was a mistake in the entries regarding the sale of flats to J.B. Exports in as much as the rate at which the property was shown as sold to the said party was much higher than the rate at which the property was sold to other parties. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the claim but the Tribunal accepted it on the basis that the huge difference in the rate of sale of the flat recorded in other cases and in the case of J.B. Exports supported the assessee’s contention that there may be a mistake in recording the rate. It held that as the department had failed to prove concealment without any doubt, penalty could not be imposed. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

Merely because the assessment proceedings have been confirmed does not automatically mean that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is justified. Unless the case is strictly covered by s. 271(1)(c), penalty cannot be invoked. For sustaining penalty, the bona fide explanation of the assessee must be looked at so that the contumacious conduct of the assessee for the purpose of sustaining the penalty would be taken as condition that is the main requirement u/s 271(1)(c). In Mak Data P. Ltd vs. CIT the Supreme Court held that when a difference is noticed by the AO between the reported and assessed income, the Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment and the burden is on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the Explanation has been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted undisclosed income. On facts, the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. If the department did not agree with the explanation, the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such onus has not been discharged by the department and so the Tribunal’s finding cannot be interfered with (Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) & Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC)

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multi-level Marketing MLM India Affiliate Marketing Affiliate Marketing Software MLM Software MLM Solutions Multi level marketing solutions MLM Servi

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