TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (12) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for a default under s. 271(1)(c) for the asst. yr. 1970-71. The assessee firm showed in its return an income of Rs. 79,927 and the income finally determined after the order of Tribunal stands at Rs. 1,10,470. The IAC levied the penalty on two counts, under-valuation of closing stock to the extent of Rs. 1,214 and disallowance out of salaries claimed amounting to Rs. 20,400. The IAC held the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per cent of the assessee income as finally determined would be Rs. 88,376 and the income shown in the computation sheet are Rs. 88,855 was higher than that and hence the Explanation could not apply. 3. We find force in the submission of Shri Puranik. The assessee had disclosed an income of Rs. 88,855 an had be mistake shown the net income after deducting firm's tax. Considering the figure of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... computation sheet filed alongwith the return of income. There would be no reason to treat this amount to be concealed income for levying penalty. 5. The IAC has levied the penalty by considering the under-valuation of the closing stock of Rs. 1,214. It was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that as is clear from the computation sheet the assessee had revalued the closing stock for the purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two items viz; salary of Rs. 14,400 paid to 4 partners and salary of Rs. 6,000 paid to Shri Shivnarayan and Shri Nandlal. So far as the first item of Rs. 14,400 is concerned, right upon the Tribunal stage in quantum assessment, the assessee was making this claim on the ground that the partners were partners in the firm on behalf of their HUFs while the salaries had been paid to them for services ....