Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Radhakrishna Roadways P.Ltd, Navi ... vs Acit Cc 45, Kalyan on 14 March, 2019
3. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the
assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and
perused the material available on record. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR
of the assessee submits that the ground of appeal raised by assessee is
covered in assessee's group case in Radhakrishna Roadways Pvt. Ltd. vs.
ACIT in ITA No. 3728/Mum/2017 dated 14.03.2019, wherein similar
penalty was deleted. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the loss
has been lapsed and the assessee has not claimed set off of such loss.
Accordingly, there is no evasion of tax on claiming and disallowance of such
2
ITA No. 3729 Mum 2017-M/s Gupta Steel Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
long term capital loss. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed the copy of
acknowledgement of Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year 2018-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
In
the case of Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) and M/s. SSA's
Emerald Meadows, ITA No. 38 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015, it has been held that
no penalty can be imposed where one of the two limbs i.e. 'concealment of
income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' on which penalty
was proposed to be imposed is not mentioned.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1