9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary in the reasonings arrived at by both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal who have rightly held that this is not a question of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. In the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, respondent withdrew such claim since it had failed in such challenge before the CIT(Appeals) by then. On a bona fide belief that the letters iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 19,47,164/ without considering the fact that the assessee consciously made the claim of undue deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to ₹ 53,37,610/ in the return of income even though it did not receive the requisite certificate in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer issued by the said department. On the ground that the letters were not in prescribed proforma as was the requirement of law, the claim was disallowed and penalty proceedings had been initiated by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the ground that the assessee had suo motu made adjustments in the claim resulting into main ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology would have been furnished. However, on the expenditures made by the assessee for the purpose of Scientific Research and Development, no doubt was raised at any point of time by the Revenue. Tribunal was of the opinion that on a bona fide belief, when on the basis of certificates/letters, such claim could be made however, there was no question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
