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>Court upholds Tribunal decision on penalty for loss return. Precedent supports penalties for positive income only.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MSK CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MSK CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. - [2008] 296 ITR 18 (Mad) Issues:1. Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for a loss return.2. Retrospective effect of the amendment to Explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1)(c).Analysis:Issue 1: Penalty for Loss ReturnThe case involved tax appeals against an order of the Tribunal for assessment years 1997-98 and 2000-2001. The appellant, the Revenue, challenged the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the Tribunal. The assessee had filed a loss return claiming deduction of interest paid to IREDA under Wind Mill Division. The Assessing Officer disallowed the unpaid interest, reduced the loss, and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal concurred, stating that disallowance of interest does not constitute concealment of income, and if no tax is payable, then no penalty can be levied. This position was supported by a previous decision of the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. A. Hariraman, [2006] 282 ITR 607, which clarified that penalties apply only when there is positive income, not a loss. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty.Issue 2: Retrospective Effect of AmendmentThe second issue raised was whether the amendment to Explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1)(c) should be treated as having retrospective effect. However, the judgment did not delve into this issue as the primary focus was on the penalty imposed for a loss return. The Court found no substantial question of law requiring consideration regarding the retrospective effect of the amendment. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded, closing the related motion.In conclusion, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for a loss return, citing precedent and emphasizing that penalties are applicable only in cases of positive income, not losses. The judgment did not address the issue of the retrospective effect of the amendment to Explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1)(c) as it was not deemed significant in the context of the case at hand.
TaxTMI 