9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 200% - argument of breach of the principles of natural justice - According to the petitioner, this was a mistake which occurred because the law was amended after AY 2017-18 and also averred by the petitioner that between 2018-19 and 2019-20, the cap for deduction was pegged at 150% - petitioner says that the impugned penalty order was passed without according personal hearing to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh: Mr Karanjot Singh with Mr S. Vasudevan, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Gibran Naushad and Ms Shakshi Shairwal, Standing Counsel. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) CM APPL. 42388/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 10939/2023 and CM APPL. 42387/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned penalty order came to be passed because the petitioner had claimed excess deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ], vis-a-vis expenditure incurred on research and development. 8. Concededly, the petitioner, in the AY in issue, i.e., AY 2021-22, was allowed to claim a deduction at the rate of 100% of the expenditure incurred. However, it ended up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made. This fact which emerges from the record is not disputed by Mr Agrawal. 12. Having regard to the fact that personal hearing was not granted, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and the consequential notice. 12.1 It is ordered accordingly. 12.2 Liberty is, however, given to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a fresh order after according personal hearing to the authorized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
