1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rules firm not liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) as partners' knowledge doesn't impute to firm.</h1> The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the firm did not deliberately furnish inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c). The ... Inaccurate Particulars, Interest Payments Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Analysis:The case involved a partnership firm that filed its return showing certain interest payments as deductions, which were later found to have been paid to some of the partners themselves. The Income-tax Officer added back the interest amounts, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000, alleging that the firm had made a false claim for deduction with a mala fide intention of reducing taxable income. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the firm furnished inaccurate particulars of income knowingly. However, the Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the firm and partners are distinct entities for tax purposes, and the knowledge of individual partners cannot be imputed to the firm as a whole. The Court held that the firm did not deliberately furnish inaccurate particulars of income, disagreeing with the Tribunal's interpretation of the law.The Tribunal based its decision on the premise that the partners and the firm were not separate entities concerning the state of affairs. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that a firm is a separate entity liable to pay tax, distinct from individual partners. The Court highlighted that the knowledge of some partners about certain facts cannot be attributed to the firm as a whole for tax assessment or penalty purposes. The disclosure made by some partners after filing the return did not prove the firm's knowledge of inaccurate particulars at the time of filing. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the firm liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c).In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the firm did not deliberately furnish inaccurate particulars of income. The Court's decision was based on the distinction between the firm and individual partners under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the partners' knowledge cannot be imputed to the firm. The Court's judgment overturned the Tribunal's decision and held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
