Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Dhl Operation Bv The Nehterlands ( Now ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 May, 2015 cites

C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010

"2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para 7 of the judgment has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee in its return of income had furnished full particulars and that the issue being debatable the matter was referred to the Special Bench. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., reported in 189 Taxman 322 (SC) has held that the claim made by the assessee was under a bonafide belief that the claim was allowable and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1723 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

C.I.T,Delhi vs Atul Mohan Bindal on 24 August, 2009

6076,6099 & 3981 to 3985/10 incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under s. 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. - CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 248 : 28 DTR (SC) 1 : (2009) 9 SSC 589 followed. (Paras 7 & 8) Reading the words "inaccurate" and "particulars" in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In this case, there I no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. The assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). If the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under s. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 276 - Full Document
1