TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that during the course of assessment proceedings itself assessee made it clear that it has wrongly claimed the deduction u/s 80IB. As decided in RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [ 2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT] mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee - CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) as the assessee has disclosed all the facts relating to the particulars of computing the profits eligible for deduction in the return of income duly supported by Audit Report. We therefore confirm the view of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue s sole ground of appeal - ITA No. 694, 695 And 696/Ind/2018, C.O.No.16 to 18/Ind/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2019 - Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Arun Padaliya, CA For the Revenue : Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessed pertaining to Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015-16 is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the claim of tax credit for AMT u/s 115JD of the Act against the tax liability for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015- 16. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee paid AMT of ₹ 18,37,194/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Against this credit of ₹ 18,37,194/- assessee claimed set off of tax liability of ₹ 1,72,488/- and ₹ 1,40,928/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 and Assessment Year 2015-16 respectively out of the AMT tax credit brought forward at ₹ 18,34,194/-. Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue for Assessment Year 2014-15 allowed the assessee s claim of set off of tax liability of ₹ 1,72,488/- against the brought forward AMT at ₹ 18,94,134/- observing as follows; 4.1 Ground No.l, 2 3:- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the disallowance of credit of AMT paid in the A.Y.2013-14 amounting to ₹ 18,37,194/-. As per the provision of section 115JC to 11SJF are as under:- i) AMT are applicable for Individual, HUF, AOP, BOI~ etc. from assessment year 2013-14 onwards if adjusted total income exceeds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately succeeding the assessment year for which tax credit becomes allowable under sub-section (I). v. In any assessment year in which the regular income tax exceeds the alternate minimum tax) the tax credit shall be allowed to be set-off to the extent of the excess of regular income tax over the alternate minimum tax and balance of the tax credit, if any, shall be carried forward. vi. If the amount of regular income tax 'or the alternate minimum ax is reduced or increased as a result of any order passed under this Act, the amount of the credit allowed under this section shall also be varied accordingly. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for claim of AMT in the assessment year 2014-15 for which appellant has filed the revised computation for the assessment year 2014-15 during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(2) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15. The assessment has been completed u/s, 143(3) of the Act on 30.08.2016 by making an addition of Rs, 14,09,835/-) disallowing deduction of ₹ 12,99,8351- u/s, 8OJJA and ₹ 1,10,000/- out of expenses and creating a demand of ₹ 7,34~860/ .. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 30.8.2016. On 29.8.2016 revised computation of income was filed by the assessee withdrawing wrong claim u/s 80IB of the Act. It was also submitted that in the preceding years the assessee was eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act which was allowable only up to Assessment Year 2013-14 but the assessee was making wrong claim u/s 80IB of the Act and the same was inadvertently made for Assessment Year 2014-15 also. However Ld. A.O denied the claim u/s 80IB and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 27.3.2017 penalty of ₹ 4,10,000/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for deliberately furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by making wrong claim u/s 80IB of the Act at ₹ 12,99,835/-. Against the levy of penalty assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the finding of Ld. A.O and Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
