TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n paragraph no. 3 is impacable. See CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) as held that disallowance of a claim for deduction will not automatically lead to the levy of penalty unless there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We are agreeing with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) that by reason a bona fide legal claim in the return of income even if the same is ultimately found to be not acceptable, it would be said that income has been concealed or inaccurate particulars of income were furnished, and consequently, the assessee cannot be penalized. We, therefore, while upholding the order of the Ld. CIT (A) dismiss the grounds of appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short called as the Act ) for the AY 2011-12 was completed and during the course of assessment it was found that the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act but since the assessee had not obtained any approval from the competent authority and the Software Technology Park of India was not competent to grant approval. However, assessee filed a revised computation of income withdrawing the claim of deduction u/s 10B but the Assessing Officer found that for non approval by the assessee by the competent authority the assessee is not entitled to seek deduction u/s 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Technovate E Solutions Pvt. Ltd., approval given by the STPI is valid having authority of Inter Ministerial Standing Committee in respect of the claims u/s 10A, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Act since the provisions of Section 10A and 10B are similar. Further he submitted that the moment the assessee realized this, they filed revised return of income withdrawing the claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act, as such, the deletion of penalty by the Ld.CIT (A) is proper and cannot be interfered with. 4. We have carefully gone through the record. The contention of the assessee is that the provisions of Section 10A 10B are similar, as such, since the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
