Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)Section 269T in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Triumph International Finance (I) ... on 12 June, 2012
Respectfully, following the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance
(I) (supra), we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of assessee's
cross objection is also dismissed.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
C.I.T. Central-Iv, Mumbai vs M/S Triumph International Finance (I) ... on 21 April, 2014
(e) Mr. Mohanty's submission that the test laid
down in Triumph International Finance (supra) will
have no application in the present facts in view of
the large number of entries in this case as
compared to only one entry in the case before this
Court. The test of reasonable cause can not, in the
present facts be determined on the basis of the
number of entries. If there was a reasonable cause
for making the journal entries, then, the number of
entries made, will not make any difference.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Andhra ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961
This
observation is found to be without merit particularly
in light of the decision of High Court of Bombay in
the case of CIT vs MIs. Triumph International
Finance(l) Ltd ITA No.5745 of 2010 dated 17.8.2012
for the A.Y.2000-01,as noted in para 6.3 above,
wherein the appellant company and its sister
concern M/s, Triumph Securities Ltd had
transactions of sale and purchase with common
19
ITA No . 6 4 22 / Mu m /2 0 16
CO . 1 1 1/ Mu m/ 20 1 8
customers and the credit/debit liabilities were settled
through journal entries and it was held 'that the
transactions in question were undertaken not with a
view to receive loans/deposits in contravention of
Section 26955, but in a view to extinguish the
mutual liability of paying/ receiving the amounts by
the assessee and its sister concern to the
customers In the absence of any material on record
to suggest that the - transactions in question were
not reasonable or bonafide and in view of section
273B of the Act, we see no reason to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of
Rs.22.99 crores.'
6.5.2. It has also been observed by the AddI.CIT
that it shalt not be out of place to mention that the
assessee group has made a disclosure before the
Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission,
Mumbai, of undisclosed income arising out of
transactions with and by various group entities
which are also the subject matter of investigation
pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble ITSC Hence it
cannot be ruled out that the entities through whom
such repayment/acceptances are done are not part
of a chain of entities involved in transaction for the
purpose of tax evasion. In this regard the appellant
has submitted that no investigation pursuant to the
order of the Settlement Commission was pending on
28.92015 i.e. the date of levy of penalty since the
order of the Settlement Commission u/s.245D(4)
was passed on 25.11.2014. Thus, the above said
observation is found to be based on presumptions
20
ITA No . 6 4 22 / Mu m /2 0 16
CO . 1 1 1/ Mu m/ 20 1 8
and do not justify the levy of penalty u/s.271D of the
Act.