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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 affirms penalty for unexplained foreign account deposit in 2002-03</h1> The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2002-03, finding that the assessee failed to prove when funds were ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made in the quantum assessment proceeding - HELD THAT:- Mere addition made in the quantum assessment proceeding would not result in levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) automatically. Each and every addition made in the assessment proceeding, cannot be construed to be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, in this case, the assessee claims that the money was not deposited during the year under consideration. The assessee has not provided the details of deposit of money in the account. In the absence of any details with regard to deposit or investment of money in the bank account, we do not find any reason to find fault with the authorities below that the balance as on 31.12.2001 is the money belonging to the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the penalty. Quantum of penalty, the Assessing Officer levied penalty at 300%. However, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the same to 100%. Tribunal is of the considered opinion that levy of penalty is the discretion of the Assessing Officer. CIT(Appeals) has also power coterminous as that of Assessing Officer. Therefore, when the lower authority exercised his discretion in restricting the penalty to 100% instead of 300% levied by the AO, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower authority. Therefore, we do not find any reason to find fault with the CIT(Appeals) in restricting the penalty to 100%. Issues:Appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2002-03.Analysis:The appeals by both the assessee and Revenue were directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03. The Revenue contended that the penalty should be 300% due to funds transferred to a foreign account, impacting the Indian economy. The assessee argued that no amount was invested during the relevant year and that penalty should be for the earlier assessment year, urging re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the assessee had deposited funds in a foreign bank account, with the declaration of endowment signed by the assessee. Despite the assessee's claim of no involvement with the account, the Tribunal held that the deposit was made during the year under consideration as the exact date of deposit could not be proven by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof was on the assessee to demonstrate when the money was deposited. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, as the assessee failed to provide details of the deposit, leading to the presumption that it was made during the relevant year.The Tribunal clarified that the assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, requiring a re-evaluation of evidence in penalty proceedings. Mere additions in the assessment do not automatically lead to penalty under Section 271(1)(c). In this case, since the assessee did not provide details of the deposit, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering the balance as on 31.12.2001 to be the assessee's money for the relevant year. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) rightfully confirmed the penalty due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessee regarding the deposit. Regarding the quantum of penalty, the Assessing Officer initially levied it at 300%, but the CIT(Appeals) reduced it to 100%. The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had the discretion to restrict the penalty, and there was no reason to interfere with this decision. Consequently, both appeals by the Revenue and assessee were dismissed, affirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2002-03.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found