9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income. The impugned order also records the fact that there was a malfunctioning of the software as the tax liability could not have been 'Nil' in the absence of the deduction under Section 80P of the Act being taken into account as the income declared by the respondent assessee is ₹ 1.26 crores before deduction under Section 80 of the Act. The malfunctioning of the software under which the return of income was electronically uploaded is also not disputed before us, nor is it shown that the finding of the Tribunal on the above account is in any manner perverse. So far as the nonconsideration by the Assessing Officer of the merits of the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, we find that the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and passed an order on 18th December, 2009 under Section 143(3) of the Act accepting the return of income as Nil after allowing exemption under Section 80P of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax exercised its powers under Section 263 of the Act and revised the order of assessment dated 18th December, 2009. The revision was on account of the fact that even when the respondent had not claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act particularly under Section 80P of the Act, yet it was granted in the face of the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 284 ITR 323 (SC). Further, the Assessing Officer while allowing the deduction did not make enquiries with regard to entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 2009 of the Assessing Officer also reflects the consideration of the respondent assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act was claimed in the return of income and consequently, the Assessing Officer did consider in his order dated 18th December, 2009 the merits of the respondent assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the electronically uploaded return of income did not reflect the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Therefore, according to Mr. Tejveer Singh, in view of the decision of the Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
