Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.36 seconds)
The Acit Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad on 8 February, 2022 cites

M/S. N.G. Patel & Associates,, ... vs The Add.Cit.,Range-9,, Ahmedabad on 9 December, 2019

2.5 The AO has not denied the fact that land sold during the year in agricultural land hence due to inadvertence, such gain was claimed as exempt. This mistake is bonafide mistake and cannot be held to be intentional mistake to conceal income because gain in present case has become taxable only because land sold during the year was classified as stock in trade in spite of the fact that it was agricultural land and even appellant was also holding certain lands as investments hence under bonafide impression, that appellant has sold land out of such investment, he claimed profit as exempt. The AO has not pointed out that such mistakes are recurring in nature. The nature of asset held by appellant might have created confusion at the time of filing of return of income which was later on rectified by appellant in assessment proceedings and addition made on account of disclosure of higher income in revised computation of income would not lead to levy of penalty u/s 3 ITA No. 799/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT vs. Shri Chandrakant G. Patel 271(1)(c) of the Act. If appellant would have intention of not disclosing correct income, he would not have got his books of account audited considering sale of agricultural land as part of total turnover. The appellant is an individual and though his books of account are audited by chartered accountant, he would not have received high level of professional assistance as is obtained by corporate entity and mistake on part of appellant for disclosing taxable gain as exempt u/s 2(14) would not lead to conclusion that appellant has conceal income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

"2. The only question which is involved in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not proper. In the opinion of the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly, it was a case of a bona fide mistake rather than a deliberate mistake on the part of the assessee while calculating depreciation on the assets of the assessee. It was found that the assessee is a new businessman and he could only claim depreciation for a fraction of the year and not for the full year--that being the first year of starting the production as claimed by the assessee. We do not find that such can be a good ground for imposition of a penalty by the taxing authorities. It has been said long back by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, that merely because taxing provisions provide for a power to impose penalty that does not entitle the authorities to impose a penalty for every breach howsoever venial or technical it may be. In order to impose penalty the authorities must see the conduct and deliberate intention on the part of the assessee in concealing his true income. In our view no such case seems to have been made out. We thus concur with the view so recorded by the Tribunal and hold that this does not involve any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, as being devoid of any substance."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document

Price Waterhouse Coppers Private ... vs Assessee on 13 July, 2016

We take into account all these facts to quote hon'ble apex court's landmark judgment in Price Water-house Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 348 1TR 306 (SC) that such inadvertence cannot be termed as an instance attracting the impugned penalty provision in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We repeat that the assessee'smultifolded errors hereinabove inter alia in not having declared only two sale transactions instead of three, not adjusting cost of indexation on proportionate basis, not declaring interest income in 1000s of rupees and not being able to prove cost of improvement which were admitted latter on being pointed out jointly read lead us to a conclusion that it was a silly mistake on her part on all these issues. We thus draw support from hon'ble apex court's abovestated judgment to conclude that both lower authorities have erred in imposing the penalty in question of Rs.14,71,190/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same is therefore deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 14 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next