Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 1775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... #39;ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Provision of overdue interest - It is not the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the assessee neither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars. The case of the assessee is that he made a provision on sticky loans by following the RBI guidelines by filing all the details before the Assessing Officer. Once, the assessee filed all the details in his re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee also filed a note claiming the status that the society is mutually benefit society run on cooperative lines, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee, in his return of income also claimed overdue interest. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, hence, claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the lones, on which no payment is forthcoming for more than 90 days are treated as sticky loans and the interest which is accrued and already credited is reversed by creating reserve account and debiting the same as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T.Act and would not entitled for the impugned deduction. The view of the AO was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) in the assessee's appeal for A.Y.2008-09. However, it is also seen that the assessee's claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(ii) was upheld by the CIT(A) for A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y.2009-10 and no disallowance was made for A.Y.2010-11. Taking these facts 1ftb consideration, I am of the view that the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be said to be made in a non-bonafide manner. It is also noted that the disallowance was on account of a debatable issue whether the assessee could be construed as a co-operative bank within the purview of Sec.80P(4) and whether the assessee would not be entitled for claim of deduct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Act. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee is a bank and in the light of sub-clause(4) to section 80P, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Accordingly, he denied the claim of the assessee. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. The Assessing Officer, by simply noting assessee has concealed the particulars of the income, imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the explanation of the assessee, cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we find that in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee has filed all the details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and therefore, the provision made by him cannot be allowed. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, by simply noting assessee concealed the income, invoked the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and imposed penalty. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the method followed by the assessee is inconsistency with the established principles of accounting and judicial decisions of the Apex Court. It is not the case of the Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates