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

        Tribunal cancels penalties for low jewelry value, Explanation 4 not applicable

        Smt. Sheila Rani Anand. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

        Smt. Sheila Rani Anand. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. - ITD 048, 352, TTJ 048, 560, Issues Involved:
        1. Levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act for disclosure of low value of jewellery in returns.
        2. Applicability of Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Levy of Penalty Under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act:
        The assessees objected to the levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) for disclosing low value of jewellery in their returns. The particulars of wealth assessed, value of jewellery shown, and assessed in the three cases were as follows:
        - Pradeep Kumar Anand: Wealth - Rs. 2,73,890, Jewellery shown - Rs. 1,20,000, Jewellery assessed - Rs. 2,23,390.
        - Smt. Shiela Rani Anand: Wealth - Rs. 19,57,098, Jewellery shown - Rs. 1,80,000, Jewellery assessed - Rs. 3,00,000.
        - C.L. Anand, HUF: Wealth - Rs. 26,96,307, Jewellery shown - Rs. 1,04,039, Jewellery assessed - Rs. 1,88,495.

        The assessees claimed the value of jewellery was based on the preceding assessment year, as per CBDT instructions. They voluntarily furnished the report of a registered valuer before any discrepancy was detected. The assessing officer, however, initiated penalty proceedings due to the difference in the disclosed and assessed value of jewellery and shares, concluding that the assessees concealed particulars of wealth.

        2. Applicability of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act:
        The learned CWT(A) accepted that no penalty was leviable on the difference in the value of unquoted shares returned and assessed, acknowledging it as a bona fide difference. However, he levied penalties for the low value of jewellery shown, holding that the difference amounted to concealing particulars of wealth. The CWT(A) relied on Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c), which states: "Where the value of any asset returned by any person is less than seventy per cent of the value of such asset as determined in an assessment under section 16 or section 17, such person shall be deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such asset within the meaning of clause (c) of this sub-section, unless he proves that the value of the asset as returned by him is the correct value."

        The Appellate Tribunal examined whether Explanation 4 was applicable. The Tribunal noted that the Explanation shifts the onus to the assessee to prove that the returned value of the asset is correct, even if the assessed value has become final. The Tribunal distinguished between "estimated" and "determined" values, noting that "determined" implies a fixed calculation based on definite data, while "estimated" involves approximation and guesswork.

        The Tribunal concluded that penalty under section 18(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the value returned is less than 30% of the assessed value if the value is taken on an estimate basis. The Explanation applies only when the value is determined as per statutory provisions. In the present case, the jewellery value was returned and assessed on an estimate basis, and the valuation report was an opinion of an expert, not a precise determination. Therefore, the assessees were not subject to Explanation 4, and the penalties were canceled.

        The Tribunal also noted that the CWT(A) had canceled the penalty on the difference in the value of shares, which was accepted by both parties, further supporting the view that the value was estimated, not determined.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal allowed the appeals of all three assessees, canceling the penalties levied under section 18(1)(c) for the low value of jewellery shown in the returns. The Tribunal held that Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) was not applicable as the value of jewellery was estimated, not determined, and the penalties were unsustainable.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found