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>Penalty Upheld for Inaccurate Exemption Claim Under Section 11 Without Registration for Assessment Year 2008-09</h1> <h3>Office of the Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 1 (1) Mumbai Versus Bhagwan Shri Hamsa Trust</h3> The Tribunal in Mumbai upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. ... Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee's inaccurate claim of exemption u/s 11 - CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied by concluding that assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT:- The assessee has raised the false claim by furnishing the inaccurate particulars by claiming taxable income as Nil whereas the assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption because he was not having the registration u/s.12AA of the Act for the relevant assessment year. In brief he was not having the exemption u/s.12AA of the Act for the relevant assessment year but sought the exemption u/s.12AAof the Act for the assessment year 2008-2009 wrongly and illegally. No doubt in the said circumstances the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is quite applicable and the law relied by the CIT(A) in his order i.e CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] is no where applicable to the facts of the present case. CIT(A) has decided the matter wrongly and illegally therefore, the order in question is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law - Decided in favour of revenue. The Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue challenged the cancellation of the penalty by the CIT(A) based on the assessee's inaccurate claim of exemption under section 11. The Tribunal found that the assessee falsely claimed exemption without the necessary registration certificate, making the claim inaccurate. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, allowing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
