Ito, Exemption Ward , Ghaziabad vs United Educational Society C/O Nimt ... on 28 June, 2019
1. United Education Society Vs. JCIT (2018) 63 ITR(Trib.) 135
(Del.) Para 8, 9 & 11 of this order reads as under-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
Further at Para 6.2, Hon'ble ITAT by referring to the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR
26 held that as the assessee was under bonafide belief that the provisions
of section 44AB are not attracted and therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, no penalty can be imposed when the
assessee had not acted deliberately.''
Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Magnum International Ltd., New ... on 26 August, 2019
The
reliance made by the Ld counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT vs.
India Magnum Fund reported in 81 ITD 295 (Mumbai), where it has been
held that income of the assessee was exempt from tax under section
10(23D). However, section 44AB becomes operative when there is
computation of profits and gains of business or profession as a part of
total income. The assessee being a mutual fund, the income was exempt
under section 10(23D). Hence, the assessee was not liable to obtain any
audit report within the meaning of section 44AB of the Act. Therefore,
cancellation of penalty under section 271B was justified. We, therefore,
are convinced with the arguments of the ld counsel for the assessee before
the Ld CIT(A) and before us that the income of the assessee trust is wholly
exempt under section 11 of the Act, which is part of Chapter III of the Act
and therefore, provisions of Chapter IV cannot be made applicable and,
therefore, the provisions of section 44AB of the Act cannot be applied in
the present facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the AO is not
justified in levying penalty on the assessee. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is
accordingly reversed.
1