9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, dated 31/12/2015, where it has accepted the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court and accordingly, issued a circular explaining the position of law before insertion of Explanation 4 to sub section (1) of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Finance, Act, 2015, which provide for method of calculating the amount of tax sought to be evaded for situations, where the income determined under the normal provision is less than the income declared for the purpose of MAT provisions u/s 115JB - where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted with reference to addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed by the AO us/ 271(1)(c) without specifying the exact default for which the penalty is imposed in the notice issued u/s 274, hence in view of CIT v Shri Samson Perinchery, CIT v. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory, etc, sustaining penalty by CIT(A) is not justified. 2) On the facts and hi the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)-2 has erred in passing the impugned order ignoring the fact that the income of the appellant is assessed u/s 115JB at returned income, hence no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(l)(c) as held in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd, etc, and CBDT Circulars No. 25/2015 dated 31/12/2015. Hence, the penalty cannot be sustained. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10/-. Thereafter, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and after considering relevant submissions of the assesee levied penalty of ₹ 1,53,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is equivalent to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings, in absence of proper notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had also challenged penalty levied , on the ground that it has neither concealed particulars of income, nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income, which warrants levy of penalty u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on income computed under normal provisions of the Act is less than, the tax payable under the deeming provisions of section 115JB of the Act, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 could not be imposed with reference to additions/disallowances made under normal provisions of the Act. The CBDT had issued a circular No. 25/2015, dated 31/12/2015, where it has accepted the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court and accordingly, issued a circular explaining the position of law before insertion of Explanation 4 to sub section (1) of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Finance, Act, 2015, which provide for method of calculating the amount of tax sought to be evaded for situations, where the income determined under the normal pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
