Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing The Dcit vs Koatex Infrastructure Ltd. on 12 August, 2005

B. Patel Infrastructure (P) Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 December, 2011

"7. The matter has been given due consideration and I am afraid in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no justifiable reason for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Vide order No.CIT(A)/GNR/150/2007-08 dated 30/12/2007 in the appellant's case for assessment year 2004-05, the issue that per se the assessee had not concealed any particulars and the fact that there existed difference of opinion among various authorities till the date of receipt of ITAT's order on 31/12/2005, had been highlighted to hold that the assessee cannot be visited penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Disallowance of an expense on different ITA No.806/Ahd/2010 DCIT vs. B.Patel Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Late Hari Shankar Khandelwal, ... vs Acit, Bharatpur on 29 August, 2017

DCIT Vs. Koatex Infrastructure Limited 100 ITD 510 (Mum.) Levy of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) is not automatic. Where assessee could demonstrate that it was not humanly possible to compute alleged true undisclosed income from the voluminous papers and difference is not a result of intentional concealment but for bona fide mistakes, penalty u/s 158BFA(2) is not imposable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Nirmala Kapur, Agra vs Assessee on 20 December, 2012

Since the assessee has disclosed huge amount in the return for the block period as undisclosed income and also disclosed addition income to cover up contingencies and both these additions have been made on the basis of information given by the assessee in the return of income and the information given by employees of the assessee, therefore, the decision of Chennai Bench in the case of K. Ramakrishnan (HUF)(supra) and the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of Koatex Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) would apply in favour of the assessee for cancellation of penalty. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that assessee did not challenge both the above additions. We are of the view that levy of penalty is not justified and as such by exercising our discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case, we cancel the levy of penalty on both these additions on account of perquisites and unrealized rent. The other three additions on account of RD account, the undisclosed jewellery and undisclosed income would be sufficiently covered by the disclosure of Rs.6,00,000/- for which the AO has already given benefit to the assessee. Therefore, the levy of penalty is not justified in the matter. We may further note that the AO in the aforesaid case, did not impose minimum penalty, but has imposed double of the penalty, which is also not justified in view of the facts and circumstances noted above and considering the nature of the additions, on which penalty has been imposed coupled with the huge amount surrendered by the assessee in the return of income at Rs.53,00,000/- for the purpose of computation 10 IT(SS)A No.03 & 04/2011 of undisclosed income. Considering the above discussion, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the levy of penalty and allow appeal of the assessee. In the return, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A No. 04/Agra/2011 (Nirmala Kapur) :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. K. Narayana Gowda, Bangalore vs Assessee on 8 February, 2012

CIT Vs. Moradabad General Art Metal Mills (2006) 282 ITR 510 (All) Suresh Reddy vs. ACIT (2009) 308 ITR(AT) 278 (Chennai) Enfield Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR (AT)136 (Kol) Saluja Hire Purchase Ltd vs. ACIT (2008) 305 ITR(AT) 39 (Lucknow) 305 DCIT vs. Koatex Infrastructure Ltd (2006) 286 ITR (AT)40 (Mum) Super Metal Industries vs. DCIT (2009) 23 DTR 249 (Third Member) (Mum) 4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that while selling, the Appellant did not convert the land to non-agricultural purposes; the land was situated beyond the city limits and that property at Karudapalli Village did not belong to the appellant; the property at Chamrajpet which was improved by the appellant was small and not habitable and therefore the appellant's claim for exemption ujs.54F was valid and consequently no penalty u j s.158BFA(2) was eligible.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.A.Habibulla, Salem vs Department Of Income Tax

4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assesse submitted that levy of penalty was not justified, since there is a discretion that the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty or not. It was also submitted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Koatex infrastructure ltd. [2006] 100 ITD 510 has held that levy of penalty u/s.158BFA(2) was discretionary and there is a necessity for the Learned Assessing Officer to bring independent material for making the addition. It was further submitted that the assesse filed the return on net-worth basis and though the net-worth statement filed with the return in form No.2B had undergone change during the course of assessment proceedings, the undisclosed income in the returned income remains same. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer did not discover any independent material for making the addition and therefore no penalty was leviable u/s.158BFA(2). The assesse filed return u/s.158BC and paid all the taxes due on the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer. The interest u/s.158BFA(1) was also waived by the CIT.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Murugesh Hiremath, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 November, 2009

It was pointed out that the entries found in the seized material were considered by the assessee and thereafter income from such documents was estimated and returned as undisclosed income. The only difference in assessed income is for the reason that the Assessing Officer has chosen a different methodology to estimate undisclosed income on the basis of the very same seized material. We find that the explanation offered by the assessee is not mala fide. Moreover, as noted by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 7 Koatex Infrastructure Ltd.(supra), element of concealment of particulars of income is not a condition precedent for levy of penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Act because income for the Block period is to be determined on the basis of the seized material, which is already in the possession of the Department. The assessee has only to explain as to why it was not able to compute the true undisclosed income from the seized material, as has been finally determined by the Assessing Officer. It is quite evident in the present case that the factum of the assessee having earned undisclosed income from financial brokerage is not disputed and such undisclosed income has aso been returned, albeit on estimate basis. Even the Assessing Officer has finally rested the assessment of such undisclosed income on the basis of the very same seized material and that too on an estimate basis by applying a methodology different from the assessee. It can be seen that the instant is not a case where assessee has been found wanting in returning undisclosed income from a particular source, but is a case where there is only a variation in estimating of undisclosed income on the basis of the seized material. Under these circumstances, in our view, the discretion vested in the income-tax authorities in view of the presence of expression "may" in section 158BFA(2) comes to the rescue of the assessee and such discretion deserved to have been invoked in favour of the assesse in the present case. Apart from the seized material, which has formed the basis to estimate undisclosed income by the assessee as well as by the Assessing Officer, there is no other material referred by the Assessing Officer to justify higher assessment of undisclosed income and, therefore, we find that the penalty imposable under section 158BFA(2) in the 8 present case is not justified. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty of Rs 4,78,398/- levied under section 158BFA(2) of the Act. Thus, assessee succeeds in its appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1