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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more