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: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit
 
 
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)

Penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c)
February, 10th 2007
the Supreme Court in a recent judgement delivered in the Virtual Soft System vs CIT (unreported),  has held that no penalty can be imposed on an assessee for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the absence of any positive income prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2002, effective from April 1, 2003.   The court has further held that there is nothing in the language of Section 271(1)(c), as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, to suggest that the amendment was retrospective.  The amendment being in the nature of substantive amendment would be prospective in the absence of any indication to the contrary.   The statute levying penalty, being the first and last consideration,  must be construed within the term and language of the particular statute.  The Supreme Court judgement has reversed the judgement of the Delhi High Court which has taken a contrary view,.   In the light of this judgement of the Supreme Court, no penalty for concealment of income shall be leviable in case the income assessed is negative, i.e., loss upto the Asstt. Year 2002-03.  This judgement is unreported and full text is still awaited.    Full text of the judgement when made available will be on the website http://www.cainindia.org.
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Careers

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