9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the ITAT agreed with the view of the CIT(A) that assessee has not committed any default or filed any inaccurate particulars of income warranting imposition of penalty. Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] held that where assessee has furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as concealment of income on its part and where the AO has taken a particular view contrary to the view that assessee had, it would not attract any penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Apex Court held that if this contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of investments written back of Rs. 38,84,00,000/-. 3. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also commenced. The AO came to the conclusion that assessee had committed default by filing inaccurate particulars of total income in respect of certain disallowances and levied penalty of Rs. 1,60,96,088/- being 100% of the tax on the income of Rs. 44,86,69,234/- sought to be evaded under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 18,43,03,149/- being 100% of the tax on the income of Rs. 51,37,37,000/- sought to be evaded under Section 115JB of the Act. The assessment order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30th March 2010 came to be impugned before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] and CIT(A) by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on account of disallowance of assessee's claim of provision for diminution in value of investments written back of Rs. 38,84,00,000/- on the ground that there was complete disclosure by the assessee in the computation of income in respect of the above reduction from book profit u/s.115JB of 1.T. Act without appreciating that there is no such clause or explanation in the section 115JB of the IT. Act to claim such reduction and therefore the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming a patently wrong claim while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. 5. As regards question no. 1, the Tribunal has upheld the findings of the CIT(A) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) which reads as under: 12. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
