Case Law Details
Case Name : Salman Khan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Salman Khan Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee (Salman Khan) in the present case is a leading film actor who derives income from profession of acting and advertisement assignments. The returns of income for both the years under consideration i.e assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 were filed by him on 28-11-2003 and 29-10-2004 declaring total income of Rs. 3,74,10,421/- and Rs. 4,32,19,821/- respectively.
0 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
This case should not be seen with a view that Assessee is Salman Khan or any Celeberity.What the provision related to 271(c) of Income Tax Act says is relevant here.As the assesse have not concealed his income particular or furnished the inaccurate particulars of his income,so as to attract the penal provisions of the Act.Hence the ITAT Mumbai has justified in not leving the penalty in the present case.
It is submitted with due respect to the Hon’ble ITAT that it was a fit case for the penalty and also prosecution.It is settled proposition of the law that legal expense incurred on account of the crimes committed for the personal pleasure are never a business expenditure and not deductible in computation of the total income.The question of two views after law having been laid by several authorities does not arise.Two views could have been possible where the law not laid down by the decisions of the several authorities but not now.How long a person like Salman Khan who has criminal mind will get benefit under the concept of the two views.
We are facing same problem here in Service Tax, Nobody is clear about provision and that is the cause for corruption. If you pay 20%, then AO will interpret the law differently. Shame