Wadhwa Estate & Developers India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty
cannot be levied if the omission to offer income, and the wrong claim of
deduction, was by oversight and the auditors did not point it out. Also, the
failure of the AO to specify the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed
is a fatal error Undisputedly, in the return of income assessee has failed to offer interest on fixed deposit amounting to ` 5,92,186 and loss claimed on account of fixed asset written–off amounting to Rs 1,82,242. It is also a fact on record that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee accepted the taxability of these items of income and offered them to tax. The assessee has explained that non–disclosure of aforesaid two items of income is due to oversight and due to the fact that neither in the tax audit nor in the statutory audit such omission was pointed out. We find merit in the aforesaid explanation of the assessee
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 14A & Rule 8D:
Disallowance under Rule 8D is not compulsory or mandatory. S. 14A(2) & Rule
8D cannot be invoked unless the AO examines the accounts and records the
finding why the assessee's claim/ computation is not proper (entire law
discussed and important judgements referred) Thus, Rule 8D is not attracted and applicable to assessee who have exempt income and it is not compulsory and necessary that an assessee must voluntarily compute disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules. Where the disallowance or ‘nil’ disallowance made by the assessee is found to be unsatisfactory on examination of accounts, the assessing officer is entitled and authorised to compute the deduction under Rule 8D of the Rules. This pre-condition and stipulation as noticed below is also mandated in sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules
No comments:
Post a Comment