Case Law Details
Case Name : Mimosa Investment Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2004- 2005
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS :
5.6 There cannot be a straight jacket formula for detection of these defaults of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and indeed concealment of particulars of income and in accurate particulars of income may at times overlap. It depends upon the facts of the each case. In the assessment proceedings the ITO while ascertaining the total income chargeable to tax would be in a position to detect the specific or definite particulars of income concealed or of which false particulars are furnished.
Where in the constituents of income returned, such spe...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Pl. advice, In one case the i.t.o made addition in the income u/s 68 which is confirmed by the c.i.t.(a) and the assessee has gone for appeal before the tribunal. the appeal is pending before the tribunal and in the meantime the ito has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against which the assessee has filed appeal before c.i.t. (a). we have stated before the c.i.t.(a) that the matter of penalty be kept in abeyance till disposal of appeal by the tribunal but the cit (a) dosent agree but wants us to argue the appeal against penalty on merit. Is our contention to keep the matter of appeal against penalty in abeyance right? If so please quote case law, if any.
Regards.
Sir, I have been issued a notice u/s 271(1)(c) for late depositing of TDS. Please explain about this reply