9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y proceedings u/s 271 (1) (b) and levied a penalty equivalent to 10% of the difference between the tax assessable on the income as URF and the tax on the returned income. On appeal, the AAC held that a sum of Rs. 5400 had been paid by the assessee before the filling of the return and for that the further credit should have been allowed while determining the minimum penalty leviable u/s 271 (1) (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of s. 143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of sec. 142. (ii) in the case referred to in clause (b) in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than 10 % but which shall not exceed 50 % of the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income: (2) When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears to be some force in the assessee s contention that for the purpose of calculating the penalty in the present case, the difference to be taken should be the difference of tax which would have been payable on the income assessed and the as returned. This difference in the case of registered firms has to be computed as if the assessee were an URF. No doubt a contrary interpretation taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
