Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs Thomson Press India Ltd on 31 July, 2001

Harsh International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Dcit, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi on 22 May, 2018

11. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT versus liquid investments limited in ITA No. 240/2009 is also held that when the assessee has preferred an appeal under Section 260A of the act which has also been admitted as substantial question of law, this itself shows that the issue is debatable and for this reason the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The same view was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd wherein, it has been held that where the question of law raised by the assessee has been framed and admitted in the circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty cannot justify. Similar view has further been taken by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the 334 ITR 367 wherein it has been held in para No. 3 that once the appeal preferred by the assessee has been admitted that would show that substantial question of law on the income addition is involved and thus the issue is clearly debatable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bon Sales (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 20 February, 2017

7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly in this case the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the substantial question of law with respect to the addition of Rs. 2970900/- and confirmed vide order dated 20.02.2014. Merely because the addition is confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court will not lead to penalty unless one of the twin charges of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars is satisfied. It is also an established principle that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and independent proceedings. Merely because the addition is upheld penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied automatically. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Thomson Press Ltd as well as in ITA No. 240/2009 in case of Liquid Investment has held that when the Hon'ble High Court admits and framed substantial question of law this itself shows that the issue is debatable. It is also an established principle that on debatable disallowances penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Further, the show cause notice submitted vide page NO. 1 of the show cause notice dated 30.01.2006 shows that none of the twin charges of concealment of income or Page 4 of 4 furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been struck off by the ld Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that unless the charge framed by the Assessing Officer on assessee in the show cause notice or which is discernible from the order of the assessment is specific penalty proceeding are not valid. In the present case in the assessment order the ld Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty has also been levied by order dated 16.06.2010 has also been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of Manjunatha Cotton Mills Ltd is misplaced as charge was specific and discernible from the assessment order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1