Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of taxpayer, overturning penalty for alleged income concealment.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Harsh Talwar</h3> The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Search and seizure - unexplained investment - Held that:- A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee had made surrender and the surrender has been accepted by the AO without doing any further verification. Further, in the course of penalty proceedings the assessee has given detailed explanation. The assessee has brought evidence on record to substantiate the case of the assessee that the surrender itself was not called for and that the carpets were taken on approval basis. These evidences as furnished by the assessee, as also the explanation as given by the assessee has nowhere been disputed by the AO. In fact the AO has levied the penalty without even making any comment on the explanation given by the assessee much less even without whispering about the falsity of the explanation. The Assessing Officer has gone on the presumption that the assessee himself agreed to the surrender on his own sweet will and consequently, penalty is leviable. This is not a reason justifiable enough for the levy of penalty. Even in the case of the partnership firm of M/s. Gallaria June 1st, wherein the assessee is a partner, similar penalty under identical circumstances imposed by the Revenue had been deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Decided in favour of the assessee Issues:- Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the deletion of a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partner of a firm, surrendered an amount as unexplained investment during the assessment proceedings for the year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 41.25 lakhs based on the surrender. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer did not adequately consider the defense and evidence provided by the assessee. The Commissioner concluded that there was no deliberate concealment of income and deleted the penalty.2. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer levied the penalty without disputing the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere surrender of an amount during assessment does not automatically justify the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation, supported by evidence, was not rebutted by the Assessing Officer, leading to the deletion of the penalty.3. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted a similar penalty imposed on a partnership firm, where the penalty was also deleted under identical circumstances. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's decision to delete the penalty and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized that if the assessee provides a valid explanation supported by evidence that is not disproved by the Assessing Officer, the penalty cannot be levied solely based on the surrender made during assessment proceedings.4. Ultimately, the judgment favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the lack of sufficient justification for the penalty imposition, the failure to challenge the assessee's explanation and evidence, and the consistency in deleting penalties under similar circumstances. The judgment highlighted the importance of thoroughly evaluating the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee before imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found