IT : Where revenue authorities passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on basis of additions made in course of special audit, Tribunal could not have set aside said penalty order without coming out with better reasons and without pointing out where lower authorities had gone wrong
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 525 (Karnataka)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
v.
Estate Sheriff Centre*
N. KUMAR AND B. MANOHAR, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2008†
JUNE 23, 2014
Section 271(1)(c), read with section 142(2A), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Additions made in special audit) - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether where revenue authorities passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on basis of additions made in course of special audit, Tribunal could not have set aside said penalty order without coming out with better reasons and without pointing out where lower authorities had gone wrong - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded]
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 525 (Karnataka)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
v.
Estate Sheriff Centre*
N. KUMAR AND B. MANOHAR, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2008†
JUNE 23, 2014
Section 271(1)(c), read with section 142(2A), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Additions made in special audit) - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether where revenue authorities passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on basis of additions made in course of special audit, Tribunal could not have set aside said penalty order without coming out with better reasons and without pointing out where lower authorities had gone wrong - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded]
No comments:
Post a Comment