Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Arunachala Logistics Private Limited, ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... on 25 March, 2021
cites
M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions ... vs Acit Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai on 25 September, 2018
3. Learned DR, on the other hand, has quoted Sundaram Finance Vs. ACIT
(2018) 93 taxman.com 250 (Mad) that such a failure is very much a curable default
only. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant argument since the said hon'ble
3
ITA Nos.2204, 2213 & 2208/Hyd/2018
non-jurisdictional high court's decision could not be applied at the cost of the
hon'ble jurisdictional high court decision hereinabove. We thus direct the
Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. The
assessee's first and former appeal 2204/Hyd/2018 is accepted in above terms.
Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 February, 2015
6. The assessee's next issue raises yet another equally important aspects of
quantification of the impugned disallowance. Mr. Rama Rao quoted honourable
Delhi high court decision in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR
694 (Del) that the impugned disallowance could not exceed the sum of the exempt
income itself. This clinching argument has gone unrebutted from the Revenue's
side. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned Section 14A r.w.
Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.85,50,344 to the extent of exempt income of
Rs.6,36,581 only. Necessary computation to follow as per law. The assessee's
second appeal ITA 2213/Hyd/2018 is partly accepted.
The Principal Commissioner Of ... vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi on 13 July, 2017
2. Coming to the assessee's first and foremost appeal ITA No.22204/Hyd/2018
challenging correctness of both the lower authorities imposing Sec. 271(1)(c)
penalty of Rs.50,98,500, it transpires, at the outset that the Assessing Officer had
issued his show cause notice dt. 11.3.2013; nowhere specify as to under which limb
was issued in the facts and circumstances. We thus are of the opinion this first
appeal does not require much adjudication since the Assessing Officer had himself
not made it clear in the show cause if the assessee had concealed the income or
furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in other words. Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Smt Baisetti Revati
Dt.13.7.2017 in ITTA No.684 of 2016 holds that such a failure on Assessing Officer's
part renders the entire penal process as not sustainable.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
8. The assessee's Balance Sheet is in Page 16 of the Paper Book. It had interest
free funds in the nature of share capital with reserves and surplus of Rs.28,71000
and Rs.57,9733,196 i.e. much more than the exempt income held in investment.
Case law CIT Vs. SuzlonEnergy Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 630 (Guj), CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities
and Power (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505
(Bom) holds that the necessary presumption in such a case is on deployment of
interest free funds only. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to delete the
proportionate interest disallowance of Rs.1,21,23,241 in issue.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi vs M/S Eli Lilly & Company (India) P.Ltd on 25 March, 2009
8. The assessee's Balance Sheet is in Page 16 of the Paper Book. It had interest
free funds in the nature of share capital with reserves and surplus of Rs.28,71000
and Rs.57,9733,196 i.e. much more than the exempt income held in investment.
Case law CIT Vs. SuzlonEnergy Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 630 (Guj), CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities
and Power (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505
(Bom) holds that the necessary presumption in such a case is on deployment of
interest free funds only. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to delete the
proportionate interest disallowance of Rs.1,21,23,241 in issue.
1