9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whereof has been given hereinabove. We find that under Rule 8D of the Rules, the disallowance was made by following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court and most of the issues are therefore are covered by the assessee s own case and we also find that all the facts have been fully disclosed in the return of income and in the assessment proceedings and therefore do not attract any penal action u/s 271(1)(c ) specifically linking with the disallowance under rule 8D, the same was made by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court which was not available at the time of filing of the return. The rest of the expenses were claimed by following the decisions in assessee s own cases for the assessment year 1987-88 which ult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For the Revenue : Shri Vishwas Munde For the Assessee : Ms.Arati Vissanji ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: Appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-XXVII, Mumbai pertains to the assessment year-1997-98 wherein the revenue raised the ground that the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as imposed by the AO qua the addition on account of write back of bad debts, writing back of investments, deduction u/s 10(23) of the Act, disallowance of depreciation on lease transactions treated as finance transactions, expenses for earning dividend u/s 80M, expenses apportion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act read with explanation (1) by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/ concealing its income to the tune of ₹ 8,80,32,64,401/-. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty qua the disallowance under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by holding that since the assessee itself disallowed an amount of ₹ 14,50,370/- and revised its claim during the course of assessment proceedings by following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Arrow (I) Ltd reported in 229 ITR 325 (Bom) and therefore the penalty was not justified on the disallowance of ₹ 87,337/- made under rule 6D of the Rules. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Special Bench of the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee. 3.6 The disallowance under section 80M and expenses for earning the dividend income of ₹ 52,08,28,403 and ₹ 171,74,80,473/- respectively were deleted by the ld.CIT(A) by holding that the entire expenses apportioned to earning the dividend income as has not been disallowed in the assessment order but only deduction u/s 80M has been disallowed and qua the second issue of expenses for earning dividend, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 1994-95 in which the same penalty was deleted. 3.7 In respect of share issue expenses of ₹ 24,10,42,017/-, the ld.CIT(A) held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s disclosed everything in the assessment proceedings and nothing was concealed or camouflaged. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed very reasoned and detailed order giving detailed explanations and justifications for deleting the penalty imposed by the AO on various disallowances, the details whereof has been given hereinabove. We find that under Rule 8D of the Rules, the disallowance was made by following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court and most of the issues are therefore are covered by the assessee s own case and we also find that all the facts have been fully disclosed in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o not constitute in filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.DR except reiterating the contentions as raised before the ld. CIT(A) neither brought any material to prove contrary to the findings of the ld.CIT(A) nor produced any case law so as to compel us to take a different view than the view so taken by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in view of this discussion hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the action of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th April, 2017. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
