Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
11.07.2017 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Tuesday, July 11, 2017

  I. Headlines Today:   

  1. CBDT launches taxpayer services module ‘Aaykar Setu’  (Click for detail)
  2. Govt. releases PPT on registration, migration, transition and invoice  (Click for detail)
  3. GST: Gifts by employer up to Rs 50,000 exempt  (Click for detail)
  4. Govt clears air on IGST exemption for exporters  (Click for detail)
  5. Commercial rental income beyond Rs 20 lakh to attract GST, says Hasmukh Adhia  (Click for detail)
  6. What are the tax exemption limits for allowances, reimbursements paid to employees  (Click for detail)
  7. High-income taxpayers to get priority treatment and extra facilities  (Click for detail)
  8. Now pay taxes, apply for PAN via CBDT mobile app  (Click for detail)

II. A Useful Presentation:

1.  Tax Audit u/s 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2017-18

(Please click here)


2.  Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - An Updated Overview and its Impact

(Please click here)

(Contribution by CA. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA; and contributor is available at Email-id: )

  III. Direct Taxes Case Laws: 

Pr. CIT Vs. M/s Hariom Steels (P) Ltd., Income tax Appeal No. 1 of 2016, Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2017, High Court of Allahabad

Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied, where income is assessed on the basis of deeming provisions of the Act?

Held: Yes

During the assessment year, the assessee sold certain scrap to parties not covered u/s 40A (2)(b) of the Act @ Rs. 17,340/- per metric ton whereas it was sold @ Rs. 5000/- per metric ton to parties covered u/s 40A (2)(b) of the Act. Thus, the value of the difference of the scrap sold was added to the income of the assessee and accordingly, penalty of Rs.46,25,000/- was imposed under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. However, on appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, the tribunal held that that the assessee cannot be held guilty for non-disclosure of income, which was determined by invoking discretionary jurisdiction under Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the order of the tribunal.

The Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320 in which it was observed that in order to bring the case under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee and the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. It was further held that making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of incorrect particulars so as to attract the penalty provisions. As in the present case, there is no concealment of income or furnishing of an incorrect particular of the income, hence, the penalty cannot be imposed on account of addition of income by applying the deeming provisions.
Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)

Golden Rules:

  "The ducks looks smooth and calm on top of water,
but under that there is restless pedaling.
Nothing is worth without strive and struggle in real life" 


Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now