Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for incorrectly claiming share sale income as capital gain instead of business profit</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus Ankita Deposits & Advances Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus Ankita Deposits & Advances Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the income from the sale of shares should be treated as 'Long Term Capital Gain' or 'Profit and Gains of Business.'Summary:Issue 1: Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The High Court examined the legality of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee, holding that merely because the assessee treated a particular item of income in a particular way, which was later changed by the Revenue, it would not attract penal action. The Tribunal emphasized that if the assessee had a bona fide explanation for treating an item in a particular fashion, it would not result in penal consequences merely because the Assessing Officer did not accept it. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Amit Jain.The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's view, stating that Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It held that merely making an incorrect claim under a particular head of income, while furnishing full information about the transactions, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The High Court also noted that the explanation to Section 271, which shifted the burden of proof to the assessee, was no longer applicable. The court concluded that the respondent-assessee had not suppressed any income and had disclosed it in its return, and therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.Issue 2: Whether the income from the sale of shares should be treated as 'Long Term Capital Gain' or 'Profit and Gains of Business.'The High Court reviewed the background facts, noting that the respondent-assessee, a Private Limited Company, had declared income from the sale of shares under the head 'Capital Gains' for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. The Assessing Officer reopened the case, contending that the income should be assessed under the head 'profit and gains of business' since the respondent-assessee was engaged in trading and investment in shares. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).The High Court observed that the Tribunal had correctly held that the respondent-assessee had disclosed all relevant facts regarding the sale of shares and that the only difference was the head under which the income was declared. The Tribunal noted that changing the head of income did not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The High Court also referred to its earlier decision in the quantum appeal, where it was held that the revenue authorities were entitled to treat the profits from the sale of shares as business income, but this did not imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the respondent-assessee.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that the respondent-assessee had not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars and that merely making an incorrect claim under a particular head of income did not attract penal consequences. The court emphasized that the bona fide belief of the assessee in treating the income as 'Capital Gains' protected it from the levy of penalty.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found