Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Shri Amit Jain on 6 July, 2011

Diligent Services (P) Ltd., Delhi vs Assessee on 28 October, 2014

In view of above factual matrix of the present case, we are inclined to hold that if the assessee has declared income under a particulars head which was treated by the AO under income of some other head and the findings of the AO were confirmed upto the Tribunal, then, it cannot be presumed and concluded that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or wrong particulars of its income and penalty in this situation is not leviable in the light of ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Amit Jain (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ankit Deposits And Advances P. Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 8 August, 2014

In this regard the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 (Delhi) wherein the assessee declared an income of Rs. 2,60,73,558/- from short-term capital gains and the Assessing Officer on an interpretation of the relevant provisions and having regard to the nature of transactions assessed it as income from business. He also levied penalt y under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs. 58,45,899/- on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled the penalt y. This was confirmed by the Tribunal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Immortal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 30 April, 2013

7. We are of the considered view that above decision of the Tribunal squarely applies to the facts of the case before us as the AO considered income of Rs.1,39,29,733/- declared by the assessee as short term capital gain as business income and, accordingly, has levied penalty thereon @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. We observe that assessee has furnished all the details of its income in the return filed and AO while making the assessment considered the said income as business income instead of treating the same as short term capital gain as claimed by the assessee in the return filed. We agree with ld A.R. that change of head of income does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Jain (supra) and also the Tribunal in the case of Sukdham Construction & Developers (supra). We agree with ld A.R. that it is a debatable issue and thus, there is no suppression of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Hence, we hold that levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not justified. Accordingly, we delete the penalty of Rs.41,96,900/- by allowing ground of appeal taken by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1