TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 17(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 was leviable for alleged concealment of a deemed gift arising from release of a debt without consideration.
Analysis: Penalty under section 17(1)(c) requires proof that the assessee consciously concealed particulars of a gift or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. A finding in the quantum assessment that the transaction was assessable as a deemed gift under section 4(1)(c) does not by itself establish concealment for penalty purposes. The surrounding facts showed that the assessee had a plausible and bona fide basis for treating the transaction as part of an arrangement to reimburse the Bombay company for loss on sale of shares, and the omission to fill Part IIIB of the return did not, in that factual setting, justify an inference of concealment. The department therefore failed to discharge the burden required for penalty.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 17(1)(c) was not sustainable and was cancelled in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for concealment cannot be imposed merely because a transaction is assessed as a deemed gift; the department must independently prove conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a bona fide disputed claim does not by itself attract penalty.
TaxTMI 
