2014 (6) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not appreciating the fact that when furnishing of inaccurate particulars has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return, then such amount is considered as income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished, as per clause (a) of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)?" The issue pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the record, it emerges that even after the disputed additions, the assessee-company continued to pay tax of minimum alternative basis under section 115JB of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held and observed as under: "4. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsideration before this Court in Tax Appeal No.140 of 2014. Referring to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Delhi), it was observed as under: "11. In the present case, we have noticed that the Commissioner in his order dated November 14, 2008, partially allowed the assessee's appeal in terms of quantum addition and in terms held that no addition for the purpose of computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act could have been made. The Commissioner in order to come to such conclusion relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT, reported in (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) and Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 300 ITR 251, in which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at. Such issue, however, we would answer in an appropriate case as and when such facts are presented before us. In the present case, we shall have to proceed on the basis that the order of Commissioner has become final. It is, thus, binding both on the Revenue as well as the assessee. Such order in effect was that addition for normal computation sustained, for the purpose of computation of book profit deleted. The result of this decision of the Commissioner would be that the tax that the assessee would pay before and after additions would remain exactly the same. In other words, since the Commissioner did not permit any increase in the assessee's book profit computation under section 115JB of the Act, even after unearthing the concealed....