9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income declaring gross total income under the heading business and profession at Rs. 1, 44,04060/-, and claimed deduction under section 80P (2)(a) (i) of the Income tax Act 1961, on the entire income, thereby declaring total income at NIL. Assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 143 (3) whereby he treated the interest on FDR with banks as income from other sources, not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2) (a)(i). On an appeal before ld.CIT(A), the deduction under section 80P (2) (a)(i) was allowed, which was reversed by this Tribunal subsequently. Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal assessee filed appeal before Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 27/08/2014 in ITA No. 569/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: A. Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80 P (2) (D) relating to income derived from investment in other cooperative societies. B. The availability of deduction of expenses under section 57 regarding income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the entire claim of the assessee against which assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. Before The Tribunal, assessee came into appeal for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 as well. This Tribunal after considering the various submissions on law as well as on merits and held as under: It is pertinent to note that during the concerned years under consideration the assessee had deposits with co-operative banks and commercial banks, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by the assessee. The Ld. AO rejected the contentions and submissions raised by the assessee and levied a penalty of Rs. 44,22,240/-under section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us now. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars and the claim of the assessee has been partly allowed by this Tribunal in the quantum appeal. He further submitted that the allowability of the claim under section 80 P of the act was debatable in nature and the disallowance was made on bona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., reported in 342 ITR 257 (Del); c) CIT vs. Societex reported in 259 CTR 325 (Del); d) CIT vs. Tudor Knitting works Pvt. Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 236 (P&H); On the contrary the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that assessee had wrongly claimed deduction under section 80 P of the Act and therefore the assessing officer was justified in levying penalty under section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act. We have perused the facts of the case in the light of the relevant records placed before us and the submissions advanced by both the parties. It is a case where penalty has been levied by the assessing officer on a issue in respect of which Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case for the relevant ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
