Skip to main content

Debatable/bonafide claim cannot be treated as concealment of income merely because it was disallowed

In The D.C.I.T., Vs. Sh.Vipan Guppta Prop., the Assessing Officer had restricted the assessees claim of deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act to 25% of the eligible profits as against 100% claimed by the assessee on account of substantial expansion undertaken by it, for the reason that it was the 8th year since commencement of production by the assessee in the area specified by the section, while as per the section deduction @100% of the eligible profits was allowable only for the first five years from the date of commencement of production and thereafter @ 25% of the profits for the next five years. The said disallowance was upheld in further appeals, both by the CIT(A) and the ITAT.

On appeal the Ld.CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act relying upon the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.326/Chd/2005. 

Aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has come up in appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer while the Ld. counsel for assessee placed reliance upon the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals).

The ITAT found no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty levied following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO in ITA No.326/Chd/2015 relating to assessment year 2009-10. The coordinate Bench , taking note of and agreeing with the assessees contention that the claim was based on interpretation of the section so as to allow 100% deduction of profits on substantial expansion undertaken, found the claim of the assessee to be bonafide and not false or wrong.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more