2007 (6) TMI 298 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of income for the assessment year 2001-02.
2. Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Assessment of Income (ITA No. 8854/Mum./2004)

The assessee, a private limited company engaged in software development and services, appealed against the assessment order denying the benefit of section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the exemption on the grounds that the ownership or beneficial interest in the undertaking had been transferred, reducing the beneficial interest to less than 51%. The AO noted that the shareholding of the original promoters, Shri Aatish Dedhia and Shri Nanji Dedhia, had reduced to 42.63% and 51.42% respectively during the relevant previous year. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's decision, stating that the beneficial interest in the undertaking had been transferred, thus disqualifying the assessee from claiming the exemption u/s 10A.

The Tribunal examined the case and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the beneficial holding of shares carrying not less than 51% of the voting power must continue to be held by the original promoters. Since the shareholding had reduced to 42.60%, the Tribunal concluded that the promoters had ceased to beneficially hold shares carrying not less than 51% of the voting power. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunity to present its case.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (ITA No. 5641/Mum./2006)

The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 35,95,187 levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) for allegedly concealing particulars of income by filing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 10A by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and that the explanation given by the assessee was not bona fide.

The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had made full and true disclosure of all facts material to the computation of its income and that the claim for exemption u/s 10A was based on the assessee's understanding of the law. The Tribunal noted that the rejection of the claim did not automatically attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Since there was no failure on the part of the assessee in making full and true disclosure of the facts, the Tribunal concluded that this was not a fit case for the levy of penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and canceled the penalty.