9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1028/Chd/2009, for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 31.8.2009 deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing and export of Tractor linkage parts/spanners and trading of miscellaneous items. It filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 9,81,154/- after claiming deduction under Sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Act amounting to Rs.27,07,091/- and Rs. 29,14,392/- respectively. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The finding of the Assessing Officer in disallowing deduction under Section 80IB of the Act on export incentive was upheld. The CIT(A) upheld the treatment given by the Assessing Officer to the scrap sale to work out the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The action of the Assessing Officer in deducting unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years from the profit of the year to work out the profit of the business for calculating deductions under Sections 80IB/80HHC of the Act was also upheld. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of Employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 58,944/-. The assessee's claim that the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was allowable without de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being debatable, there was no intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 had held that mere making of a claim which was ultimately found to be unsustainable may not by itself amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income. The revenue was required to show that the deduction claimed was against the statutory provision. It was recorded as under:- "We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
