Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)
Dcit, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs M/S Kamesh Bhargava Hospital & Research ... on 31 July, 2019 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Lakhani India Limited on 16 December, 2008

(iii} Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Lakhani India Ltd [2009] 17 DTK 307 (T&H); [2010] 324 ITR 73. Penalty under sec.271(l)(c) - Concealment - excess claim for deduction under sec. 80HHC - In view of concurrent finding recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the assessee, impugned order setting aside the levy of penalty under sec.271(l)(c) cannot be held to be erroneous - no substantial question of law arises.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Ludhiana vs Rakesh Gupta C/O M/S Eastman ... on 3 July, 2015

(iv) Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Ludhiana v. Eastman International f20141 41 taxmann.com 239 (Punjab & Haryana) Section 271(l)(c), read with section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income [Disallowance of claim, effect of] - Assessment year 2005-06 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for certain expenses being prior period expenses - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal confirmed said disallowance - Thereupon, Assessing Officer passed a penalty order under section 271(l)(c) - Tribunal set aside penalty order - Whether mere making of a claim which was ultimately found to be unsustainable may not by itself amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, in view of fact that, assessee had disclosed all necessary particulars relating to its claim for deduction of prior period expenses, Tribunal rightly set aside impugned penalty order - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 103 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P.) Ltd.[2012] 20 taxmann.com 610 (Punj. & Har.) Making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of incorrect particulars unless it was established that assessee had acted with a mala fide intention or had claimed deductions being aware of the well settled legal position. The assessee had claimed deductions on account of set off of unabsorbed business losses against the income from the capital gains, which was held not to be mala fide. However, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty on the assessee. The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it was established that the assessee had acted with a mala fide intention or had claimed deductions being aware of the well settled legal position. The Tribunal had observed in plain words that the assessee had disclosed all the particulars along with the return of income and it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. The Tribunal deleted the penalty. Held that the appellant could not show that the above findings of the Tribunal were illegal or perverse in any manner so as to persuade this court to interfere therewith. Hence, the deleted of penalty was justified." 5.7 Reference in particular may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial and Doctor Prem Hospital Pvt Ltd. V/s ITO (2012) 23 taxman.com 32. In this case, the facts were similar the facts in the case of the appellant. In this case, the assessee had claimed depreciation @ 40% on CT scanner on the ground that CT scanner was life saving equipment. The AO restricted the depreciation to the rate of 25% and thereafter imposed penalty on the disallowance of excess depreciation. The Hon'ble ITAT deleted the penalty and held that such disallowance cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the relevant particulars were disclosed before the AO. 5.8 The AO has relied upon the case of M/s Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510. In that case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd on 8 February, 2011

(iv) Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Ludhiana v. Eastman International f20141 41 taxmann.com 239 (Punjab & Haryana) Section 271(l)(c), read with section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income [Disallowance of claim, effect of] - Assessment year 2005-06 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for certain expenses being prior period expenses - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal confirmed said disallowance - Thereupon, Assessing Officer passed a penalty order under section 271(l)(c) - Tribunal set aside penalty order - Whether mere making of a claim which was ultimately found to be unsustainable may not by itself amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, in view of fact that, assessee had disclosed all necessary particulars relating to its claim for deduction of prior period expenses, Tribunal rightly set aside impugned penalty order - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 103 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P.) Ltd.[2012] 20 taxmann.com 610 (Punj. & Har.) Making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of incorrect particulars unless it was established that assessee had acted with a mala fide intention or had claimed deductions being aware of the well settled legal position. The assessee had claimed deductions on account of set off of unabsorbed business losses against the income from the capital gains, which was held not to be mala fide. However, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty on the assessee. The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it was established that the assessee had acted with a mala fide intention or had claimed deductions being aware of the well settled legal position. The Tribunal had observed in plain words that the assessee had disclosed all the particulars along with the return of income and it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. The Tribunal deleted the penalty. Held that the appellant could not show that the above findings of the Tribunal were illegal or perverse in any manner so as to persuade this court to interfere therewith. Hence, the deleted of penalty was justified." 5.7 Reference in particular may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial and Doctor Prem Hospital Pvt Ltd. V/s ITO (2012) 23 taxman.com 32. In this case, the facts were similar the facts in the case of the appellant. In this case, the assessee had claimed depreciation @ 40% on CT scanner on the ground that CT scanner was life saving equipment. The AO restricted the depreciation to the rate of 25% and thereafter imposed penalty on the disallowance of excess depreciation. The Hon'ble ITAT deleted the penalty and held that such disallowance cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the relevant particulars were disclosed before the AO. 5.8 The AO has relied upon the case of M/s Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510. In that case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - A K Mittal - Full Document
1