|
II. Useful Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., ITA No. 2117 Of 2012, Dated: 26.02.2013, High Court of Bombay
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) shall not be imposed “if income not offered to tax due to “inadvertent mistake”.
The decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee in including the interest received of 6% on the GOI Capital Index Bonds as interest received on tax free bonds. It is not contended by the Revenue that above finding of fact by the Tribunal is perverse. In these circumstances, there is no reason to entertain the proposed question.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. NTPC Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Others, W.P.(C) 14562/2006, Judgment delivered on: 10.01.2013, High Court of Delhi
High Court quashes reassessment notice u/s 148 claiming wrong deduction under Sec 80-IA.
We find that the whole issue is with regard to the method of production and the manner in which electricity is generated. The entire process of generation of electricity, both by the gas turbine unit and the steam turbine unit, has been explained by the petitioner in great detail in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1998-99 which has been taken notice of by the Assessing Officer. It was not as if it was a fact or a figure hidden in some books of accounts which the Assessing Officer could have, with due diligence, discovered but had not done so. The Assessing Officer had asked specific queries with regard to the manner of functioning of the two units and the petitioner had provided detailed answers. All facts were staring the Assessing Officer at his face. He could have drawn his own inferences and, in fact, he did by treating them as separate units. On the very same facts, he is now trying to draw a different set of inferences which is nothing but a mere change of opinion.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now