These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 14/08/2015 for A.Y.1997-98 and 2003-04, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) of the IT Act.
No penalty under Sec. 27(1)(c) of the Act could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of the addition of an amount of Rs. 47,66,952/- made by the A.O towards notional income of the villa owned by the assessee at Dubai.
Re–Appreciation / Reappraisal Of The Material Available On Record During The Original Assessment Proceedings: Reopening Of Assessment By Forming Of Opinion That Income Has Escaped Assessment By AO, Not Allowable:
When penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c), the specific ground, i.e., either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, penalty order was not sustainable in the absence of specific charge mentioned by AO.
Aforesaid appeals by the Revenue are against separate orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals)–2, Mumbai, in respect of three different assessees pertaining to assessment years 2008–09, 2010–11 and 2011–12.
Simply because the assessee could not produce the dealers, the entire purchases could not be treated as bogus purchases as AO could have made further investigations to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.
L&T Finance Ltd. Vs DCIT ( ITAT Mumbai) We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considered view that ‘Slump sale’ as defined in section 2(42C) means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration, without values […]
While hearing the appeal, we observed that the Registrar has heard this preliminary issue of condoning the delay and passed order on 8.3.3018 condoning the delay. The power of condoning the delay is with the Court/Tribunal under the Limitation Act as well as u/s. 253(5) r.w.s. 252(1) of the Income Tax Act.
M/s. HDFC Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) AO had made the disallowance as he was of the opinion that it was a prepaid expense and that it could not be claimed during the year under appeal, that the assessee had claimed the expenditure as per the provisions of AS-19, that the agreement entered into […]
Perusal of share holding pattern in current year clearly indicated that more than 51% of shareholding had changed, though within the group it remained the same, provisions of section 79 were attracted in assessee’s case and AO was justified in disallowing the claim of assessee.
