9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80I of the Act. We, however, for the sake of reference extract the grounds raised in I.T.A. No. 861/LKW/2014 as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding penalty of Rs. 60 lacs imposed in its case u/s 271(1)(c), without appreciating that fact that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated by the A.O. in the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not taking cognizance of the Order passed u/s 143(3) by the AO, placed on record with the written submissions filed before him, wherefrom it was clear that no proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) had been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble ITAT in the appellant's own case. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur failed to appreciate that the claim u/s 80-I of the Act was in fact subject matter of a SLP which has already been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is thus a subject matter of litigation and implying thereof that the same amounts to a difference of opinion on a question of law. Therefore the claim of the appellant was bonafide and genuine and was made correctly. 9. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) is bad on facts and in law and against the principles of natural justice as he ignored and did not consider several judgments cited by the appellant in the written submissions filed before him. 10. That the Ld.CIT(A)-I, Kanpur erred in law as well as on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 80I of the Act. A reference against this order of the Tribunal was filed under section 256(2) of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and vide order dated 18.7.1995, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has declined to answer the question and accordingly the Tribunal's order attained finality. The returns in the impugned assessment years were filed almost in August, 1991 relying upon the order of the Tribunal and deduction under section 80I of the Act was claimed. The claim of the assessees was disallowed, as the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Tribunal. Later on vide order dated 16.10.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has taken a contrary view in the case of CIT vs. M/s Kothari Pouches Ltd. ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. CIT vs. Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd., 288 ITR 670. 2. CIT vs. Rahuljee and Co., 250 ITR 225 (Del). 3. CIT vs. Chandrakant M. Tolla, 218 ITR 438 (Mad.). 4. Kikani Gordhan Dass & Co. vs. CIT, 200 ITR 678. 5. CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co, 253 ITR 630 (P&H). 6. CIT vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation, 166 ITR 29 (Cal.). 7. CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemical and Minerals Ltd., 259 ITR 212 (Raj.) 8. CIT vs. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., 211 ITR 35 (Ori.) 6. The ld. D.R. has simply placed reliance upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 7. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions, we find that undisputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
