TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (c) of the Act penalty was levied. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and strongly contended that it has not claimed simultaneous deduction intentionally and therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Projects Private Limited [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. After considering the facts and the submission and drawing support from various judicial decision the CIT(A) deleted the penalty so levied. The claim of the assessee is a highly debatable issue as there are conflicting decisions of High Courts and the Tribunal. Though the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi is against the assessee but that is relevant for quantum proceedings. Findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. In this case the return of income was filed on 30.10.2001 claiming deduction u/s 80 IA and u/s 80 HHC of the Act. 5. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee filed a revised return for following reasons :- 1. Rebate u/s 80 IA / 80 IB of the Act was calculated by eliminating notional profit earned by unit No.206 (Tool Room) of the assessee company. 2. Rebate u/s 80 HHC of the Act was recalculated unit-wise, eliminating the profit or loss earned by the unit engaged in domestic sale only. 3. Taxable profit for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) was re-calculat ed keeping in view the provisions contained under section 115 JB of the Act. 4. The assesse company claimed rebate u/s 80 JJAA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of ACIT Vs. Rogini Garments (Supra), the Hon ble Special Bench of ITAT held that literal interpretation of the provisions of Section 80 IA (9) is that relied u/s 80 IA should be deducted from the profit and gain of the business before computing relief under section 80 HHC of the Act. Subsequently, the Hon ble High Court of Madras, in the case of SCM Creations reported in 304 ITR 319 (Mad.), held that relief under section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be deducted from profits and gain of business before computing relief under section 80 HHC. After this decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of SCM Creations (surpa), Hon ble ITAT, Special Bench, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Hindustan Mint Agro Product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the claim of the assessee is a highly debatable issue as there are conflicting decisions of High Courts and the Tribunal. Though the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi is against the assessee but that is relevant for quantum proceedings. Findings in quantum proceedings may be relevant but are not conclusive or determinative of the penalty proceedings. The reliance placed by the Ld. DR on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Private Limited (supra) is misplaced because the said judgment was delivered on different set of facts. 10. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT (A). The appeal filed by the revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
