|
II. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust Vs. DIT(E), I.T.A. No. 141/2013, Date of Order: 27.07.2015, Delhi High Court
Whether
claim for depreciation on assets purchased is allowed if expenditure
incurred on purchase of the assets has been exempted under Section 11 of
the Act.
Held Yes
The
issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. M/s Indraprastha Cancer Society:
Income Tax Appeal No. 240/2014, decided on 18th November, 2014. Insofar
as the issue regarding depreciation on assets used for providing
Allopathic systems of medicine is concerned, the learned counsel for the
Revenue did not dispute that the depreciation would be allowable if the
activities of the Assessee were considered to be within the scope of
its objects. The Tribunal had denied the claim of depreciation, in
respect of assets used for providing medical relief through Allopathic
system of medicine, only on the basis that the Assessee’s activity for
running the hospital was ultra vires its objects. In the circumstances,
the third question is to be answered in the negative and in favour of
the Assessee.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s G.K.
Properties Private Limited, I.T.T.A. No. 42 of 2015, Date of Order :
17.06.2015, Andhra High Court.
Whether
merely because the assessee made a claim which is not acceptable ipso
facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate
particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income
Tax Act, for the relevant assessment year.
Held Yes
In the
facts of the present case, the Tribunal had recorded a finding in the
penalty proceedings that the assessee had purchased agricultural lands
and for a good number of years had offeredincome as agricultural income
on account of the assessee earning income on leasing of the agricultural
lands. Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the land is outside
Municipal limits i.e.,beyond eight kilometres of Municipality. This
finding is not challenged. The Tribunal also considered the judgment of
this Court in Raghotham Reddy v. ITO , wherein this Court had held that
the sale of agricultural lands would not attract income tax and exempt
from tax. In other words, the claim made by the assessee cannot be said
to be bona fide with the intention to evade the tax. Merely because the
claim made by the assessee has not been accepted ipso facto, the said
claim cannot be said to be a deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate
particulars and it also cannot be said that the information furnished by
the assessee is inaccurate inviting penalty.
This
issue of the matter is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court
in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products , wherein the apex Court held as
under: We have already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the
earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they
must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate,
not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must
hasten to add hear that in this case, there is no finding that any
details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be
incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be
no question of inviting the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A
mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself,
will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the
income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to
the inaccurate particulars.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now