Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 654 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance - Capital loss - Assessee has wrongly claimed the loss when he was aware that provisions of Sec. 94 are applicable to such transactions - Held that AO is right in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income - Accordingly, levy of penalty is justified. SAP Expenses - However, the AO will have to establish during the next assessment year whether the amount disallowed are connected with any specific depreciable asset and if it is so, only then the question of allowing depreciation during the next assessment year when the SAP project becomes operational, can be considered - directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh recording the clear finding of the exact nature of expenses claimed by the assessee company and allowing the same - Further the appeal effect is pending - However, the necessary details have already been submitted to the assessing officer - since the issue has been set aside, we set aside the penalty levied in this regard. disallowance u/s 14A - As this issue has been set aside in the quantum appeal and the addition no longer stands, set aside the levy of penalty also. Donation u/s 80G - appellant has submitted that disallowance of deduction on account of non production of receipts cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - The receipt has not been made available before more than one authority and before us and also before the authorities in the penalty proceedings - Hence we confirm the penalty on this issue. Deduction u/s.80HHC - The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 -TMI - 75701 - SUPREME COURT ], held that as long as the assessee had not given any information in the return which is incorrect, making an incorrect claim in law will not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted - Hence penalty was not leviable - Delete the penalty levied in respect of disallowance u/s 80HHC.
|