TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Grants Stay on Tax Penalty Recovery for Concealed Income</h1> <h3>M/s. Digiwave Infrastructure & Services Ltd. Versus The ACIT 8(1), Mumbai</h3> M/s. Digiwave Infrastructure & Services Ltd. Versus The ACIT 8(1), Mumbai - TMI Issues:1. Application for grant of stay of recovery of outstanding demand of Rs. 2,55,34,154 arising from penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Imposition of penalty for concealing particulars of income due to non-disclosure of interest income from a loan waiver.3. Prima facie case analysis for granting a stay of recovery of outstanding demand pending appeal.Issue 1: Application for Stay of Recovery of Outstanding Demand:The case involved an application for stay of recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs. 2,55,34,154 by the assessee, arising from a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The demand was confirmed by the CIT(A) and related to the imposition of penalty due to non-disclosure of interest income from a loan waiver.Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty for Concealing Income:The penalty was imposed by the AO on the assessee for allegedly concealing particulars of income amounting to Rs. 8.10 crores. This income was related to interest accrued from a loan advanced to another entity, which the assessee waived off. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the interest income was not accounted for by the assessee, leading to the penalty for concealing income.Issue 3: Prima Facie Case Analysis for Stay of Recovery:In the assessment of whether to grant a stay of recovery of the outstanding demand pending appeal, the Tribunal considered various factors. The assessee argued for a stay based on adequate disclosure of facts regarding the interest income in the return of income. The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the assessee, noting the balance of convenience and hardship faced by the assessee, who had wound up its business activities. Considering the financial position of the assessee, the Tribunal ordered a stay of recovery pending the appeal hearing, or for a period of six months, whichever is earlier.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of the application for stay of recovery, imposition of penalty for concealing income, and the assessment of a prima facie case for granting a stay of recovery of the outstanding demand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
