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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more