2014 (5) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....II, Ahmedabad has erred in law ad on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,41,59,604/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 1.2. In doing so, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee's claim of exemption u/s.10A of the Act for an amount of Rs.3,94,69,281/- was not bonafide and the assessee failed to substantiate its' aforesaid claim for exemption on the basis of the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the position of law. 1.3. In doing so, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in agreeing with the claim of the assessee that explanation1 below section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowable to the assessee, where such claim was not made in the return of income filed, but was made before the Assessing Officer when the claim for deduction u/s.10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(Appeals) has disallowed the claim of deduction to the assessee on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income filed nor any revised Return was filed, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India)Ltd. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.(supra) and the Jaipur Bench in the case of World Wide Stones (supra) has held that the Tr....