|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. M/s Girnar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 30/2012, Date of decision: 04.02.2013, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Decision: In favor of Revenue
Section: 158BB of I.T. Act, 1961
Assessment Year: 2003- 04, 2004- 05
Case referred:
1. CIT vs R.M.L. Mehrotra, (2010) 35 DTR (All) 160
2. CIT vs Concorde Capital Management Co. Ltd., (2009) 25 DTR (Del) 97
Whether
the material obtained during search showing a variation in expenditure
may be considered as evidence for disallowance of expenditure for a
block period u/s 158BB of the Act and would not amount to assessment on
estimation basis?
Held Yes-
In the instant case, the AO obtained spiral pads from office premises
and residence that disclosed the expenditure that had variation with the
expenses in percentage terms of consumption of coal and fuel. The AO
made an assessment for a block period considering the spiral pads having
accounts for a particular assessment year and disallowed certain
expenditure. Held that such inference cannot be said to be made on
estimation basis, as the spiral pads were seized during the procedure.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 804/ 2011, Date of decision 28.05.2013, Delhi High Court
Section: 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961
Assessment Year: 2001- 02
Whether
the bonafide claim of assessee for an expenditure to be revenue in
nature which in itself is debatable, attracts the provision of 271(1)(c)
of the Act?
Held No-
Levy
of penalty is not an automatic consequence when an addition is made by
disallowing an expense and by not accepting the interpretation given by
the assessee. Merely making a claim which is held as not sustainable
under law should not lead to penalization, when the assessee had
furnished full details in the return itself and the claim is a
debatable, reasonably plausible or may well have been accepted. Penalty
u/s 271(1)( c) could not be levied.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now