9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in providing certain services including air conditioning, generator backup, interiors, electric, wooden fixtures and fittings etc. to its clients M/s Global Vantedge (P) Ltd. and M/s Ephinay India (P) Ltd. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act to the extent of 100% of its gross total income i.e. Rs. 36,80,723/-. The order in Form 10CCB r.w. Rule 18BBB was filed with the return of income. The assessee has claimed that it is engaged in (i) developing, (ii) operating and maintaining (iii) developing, operating and maintaining, infrastructure facility. The A.O. records that the assessee company had enclosed copy of agreements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the competent authority to allow deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act as per provisions of the law in the case of the assessee. 2.1. Thus he denied the deduction. 2.2. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. When the matter came for hearing before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee withdrew the appeal. It is claimed by the assessee that there was a change in the Counsel and he was advised to withdraw the appeal. 2.3. The A.O. thereafter levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal the First Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Further aggrieved the assessee is before us on the following grounds. "1. That the authority below has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a on the other hand strongly opposed the contentions of the assessee. He took this Bench to the assessment order and argued that a blatantly wrong claim has been made by the assessee and hence it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He argued that the claim of deduction u/s 80 IA is not allowable and the assessee has made deliberate attempt to reduce its taxable income and hence it is not a bonafide mistake. He referred to auditor's report in form 10CCB and submitted that nowhere in the audit report the sub section under which the claim was made has been given. Similarly he submitted that the STPI authorities have registered the assessee for computer software exports and not for supply of air conditioners etc. He tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous conditions attached, is a complicated affair. It is another matter that the assessing authorities have found that the claim is not admissible. Under these circumstances we hold that it cannot be said that this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6.2. In the case of CIT vs. Shyama A Bijapurkar (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as follows. "On a further appeal being preferred before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took note of the facts namely - that the assessee had filed the return treating it as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
