Search Results For: concealment


QUERY: Many times assessee declare income during the course of assessment to buy peace and to avoid litigation. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills v. CIT 168 ITR 705 (SC)] was in favour which said that there can be hundred & one reasons for such disclosure. Recently, the Supreme Court in case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 393(SC) has adversely commented on such disclosure to buy peace and avoid litigation etc. and said that a voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). What is the exact position in law?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,

The Supreme Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [168 ITR 705] had held that the assessee agreeing to addition to his income, does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income.

QUERY: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable for disallowance of amount under section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction or short deduction or late deduction of tax at source on the ground that assessee has filed inaccurate particulars?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,

The Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. [322 ITR 158] has held as under:

“A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of income of the assessee.

QUERY: An assessee makes a claim for deduction through a letter during the course of assessment proceedings. The claim is not allowed in assessment and also in appeals. The AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whether penalty is leviable when claim has been specifically made during the course of assessment proceedings even if claim was not allowed at any stage?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,

The Orissa High Court in Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 316] has held

“Law is well settled that when the statute requires a certain thing to be done in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden.

QUERY: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where tax has been paid by the assessee under section 115JB of the Act and amount of tax payable as book profit is the same even as per order of assessment, with reference to variation in the amount of loss or income determined as per normal provisions of the Income-tax Act?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,

In CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., [327 ITR 543 (Del.)] the facts were the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 43.47 crores. Thereafter, the revised return exhibiting the income at Rs. 3.87 crores were filed under provisions of section 115JB

QUERY: In search cases, penalty is leviable at 10% of the undisclosed income u/s. 271AAB of the Act in certain cases, if the conditions mentioned therein are met. One of such conditions is that in the course of the search in which such income is disclosed, the assessee specifies the manner in which such income is derived and also substantiates the manner in which such income is derived. In case of cash transactions, sometimes there is no evidence to substantiate the manner of earning. Also in some cases, it may be difficult to so prove. For example, case of bogus expenses, etc. How such condition is to be fulfilled?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,

Exception 2 to Explanation 5 to section 271(1) also provides similar condition, while interpreting the said Explanation the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah [299 ITR 305] has held as under:

“In so far as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived,