TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of its income. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 are applicable in the case of the assessee & not the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 even if the tax paid by the assessee as per the Book Profit which is calculated as per the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the provisions of Section 115JB (5) of the Act, which clearly mentions that "save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section." 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite noting the date, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come from other sources, thereby adding it to the total taxable income of the assessee; that in the penalty proceedings, none had appeared, nor any reply had been filed; that the assessee company had not been able to explain its case during the assessment proceedings, from which, it was clear that it had nothing to offer by way of explanation; that in the case of 'Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.', it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that if the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished thereof is not found to be bona fide, the assessee would be liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; that in the present case, the assessee had undoubtedly failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court there is no evasion of tax in this case as tax was paid on the basis of 115JB calculations as returned by the appellant at a total income of Rs.99,74,805/-, while the assessment was completed on an income of Rs.7,65,780/- as per the normal provisions which is lower than the income declared u/s 115JB. Since there is no evasion of tax, the penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not sustainable. Based on the above decision, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable only if higher income was assessed under the normal provisions after making any additions in the assessment order. Therefore, I have no option but to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and delete the penalty of Rs.2,36,626/-. Thus, ....