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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more