|
III. Useful Case Laws:
1. ACIT Vs M/s Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, Civil Appeal No. 636 OF 2005, Dated: 04-09-2012, Supreme Court of India
Immunity from penalty available under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Sec 271(1)(c) even if tax not paid by due date of ROI.
Held:
Three conditions have got to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming immunity from payment of penalty under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c).
-
The first condition was that the assessee must make a statement under Section 132(4) in the course of search stating that the unaccounted assets and incriminating documents found from his possession during the search have been acquired out of his income, which has not been disclosed in the return of income to be furnished before expiry of time specified in Section 139(1). Such statement was made by the Karta during the search which concluded on August 1, 1987.
-
The second condition for availing of the immunity from penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was that the assessee should specify, in his statement under Section 132(4), the manner in which such income stood derived.
-
The third condition under clause (2) was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such undisclosed income.
However, no time limit for payment of such tax stood prescribed under clause (2). The only requirement stipulated in the third condition was for the assessee to "pay tax together with interest".
In the present case, all the third condition also stood fulfilled. The assessee has paid tax with interest up to the date of payment. The only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income upto the date of payment.Clause (2) did not prescribe the time limit within which the assessee should pay tax on income disclosed in the statement under Section 132(4). We hold that the assessee was entitled to immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c).
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs Bongaigaon Refinery & petrochemical Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1679 OF 2004, Dated: 05-09-2012, Supreme Court of India
Whether the assessee is required to maintain unit-wise books for claiming the benefits u/s 80HH & 80Iof The Income Tax Act?
Held:
That though neither Section 80HH nor Section 80I (as it then stood) statutorily obliged BRPL to maintain its accounts unit-wise and that it was open to BRPL to maintain its accounts in a consolidated form in order to put an end to the litigation between the Tax Department and the PSU we remit the case to the AO to ascertain whether the assessee had correctly calculated its net profits for assessment year 1992-93 in respect of its petrochemical unit for the purposes of claiming deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the present case, BRPL has prepared its Financial Statements on Consolidated Basis from which it has worked out unit-wise net profits. If not done, it could be done by the Auditors even today from the Consolidated Books of Accounts. Once such working is certified by the Auditors the net profit computation (unit-wise) could be placed before the AO who can find out whether such profit(s) is properly worked out and on that basis compute deduction under Section 80HH/80I.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now