Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S G.K. Properties Private Limited on 17 June, 2015

Carrefour Wc & C India Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, Circle-5(2), New Delhi on 23 August, 2018

The Hon'ble Telangana & AP High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. G. K. Properties P. Ltd. (supra) has been pleased to hold that merely because assessee made a claim, which was not acceptable ipso facto, the assessee could not be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. On page No. 1 in para No. 3 of the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has reproduced the names of the parties to whom the payments claimed to have been made by the assessee and by furnishing affidavit, TDS Certificates in support of payment of Rs.20,34,023/-, Tax Audit Report for the year as well as Form No. 3CBE for the year the assessee had explained that 'NIL' TDS demand was there. It is not the case of the Revenue that these informations were false. We are thus of the view that in absence of positive evidence that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the additions in question, the Assessing Officer was not justified in imposing the penalty under section 271 (1)(c ) at Rs.41,19,289/-. The same is directed to be deleted. The grounds are accordingly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Nitesh Agarwal,Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 January, 2025

(iii) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SWANANDA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI(2019) 267 TAXMAN 0429 (Bombay) "11. We note that the books of accounts of the Respondent were rejected by the CIT(A) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that the invocation of section 145(3) of the Act is unjustified as no defect was noted in the books of accounts to disregard the same. We note that CIT (A) in his order while rejecting the Books of Account does not specify the defect in the record. The basis of the rejection appears to be best judgment of assessment done by him. The rejection of books should precede the best judgment assessment. On facts, the Revenue has not been able to show any defect in the Respondent's records which would warrant rejection of books and making a Best Judgment Assessment. Thus, on facts the view taken by the Tribunal is possible view. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Thus not entertained."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nishchal Sethi, Ghaziabad vs Ito, Ghaziabad on 13 October, 2017

9. Moreover, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs. G & G Pharma Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 545/2015 order dated 08.10.2015. In the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening is bad in law and the Assessing Officer does not acquire any jurisdiction to assess or reassess the issue in hand and the assessment/reassessment so made is directed to be quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1