Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
From the Courts »
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Order of a Four-Member Appellate Authority constituted under Chartered Accountants Act is Valid: Delhi HC
 Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court)
 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-op Society Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-I Vs. Smt. Ritu Singal

February, 01st 2013
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 29.01. 2013

+       ITA 48/2013
        ITA 49/2013

                                      ... Appellant


JAKSON LTD.                                                      ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel
For the Respondent           : None




        These appeals by the revenue arise out of the common order dated

22.06.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal in ITA

No.4076/Del/2011 and 4073/Del/2011 pertaining to the assessment years

2003-04 and 2004-05.

2.      In both these matters the question is with regard to penalties under

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.                In respect of the

assessment year 2003-04 the penalty imposed by the assessing officer

ITA No.48 & 49/2013                                                      Page 1 of 4
was `15.4 lakhs whereas in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 the

penalty amount was `9.30 lakhs. In both the cases the penalty was

imposed because of the reason that the deduction claimed under section

80-IB by the respondent-assessee was ultimately allowed at a lower level.

We may take the case of the assessment year 2003-04. Initially, the

assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IB of `2,52,41,632/-.

However, subsequently the respondent-assessee filed a revised return in

which he claimed an enhanced deduction under section 80-IB of

`2,67,48,176/-. In the penalty proceedings the computation with regard

to the deduction under section 80-IB has ultimately been taken at

`2,52,41,632/-, which is the same as the amount claimed by the

respondent-assessee at the time of filing of the original return.      The

penalty has been levied on the respondent-assessee because the claim

under section 80-IB in the revised return has not been accepted and has

been reduced to `2,52,41,632/-. Similar facts have arisen in respect of

the assessment year 2004-05.

3.      The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had deleted the said

penalty and the revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal.

ITA No.48 & 49/2013                                            Page 2 of 4
4.      The Tribunal after examining the facts and circumstances of the

case found that the same was covered by the Supreme Court decision in

the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P)

Ltd.: (2010) 322 ITR 158 SC. The Supreme Court, in that decision, was

also concerned with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. The

Supreme Court observed as under:-

        "9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens
        rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case,
        as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate
        particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate"
        has been defined as:

             "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to
             truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or

        We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars"
        in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in
        conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the
        Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not
        according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here
        that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied
        by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or
        erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be
        no     question      of     inviting    the    penalty    under
        Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A 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. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to
        the inaccurate particulars."

ITA No.48 & 49/2013                                                  Page 3 of 4
5.      It is apparent from the above extract, that the mere making of a

claim which is ultimately held not to be sustainable in law, would not

amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of an

assessee. In the present appeals it is only that the claims of deduction

under Section 80IB have been downscaled. This, by itself, would not

mean that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Furthermore, there is no finding in the penalty order as to which part of

the income the assessee had concealed and with regard to which

particular facet of his income had the assessee provided inaccurate

particulars thereof. In these circumstances, we feel that the Tribunal has

correctly applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra). No substantial question of law

arises for our consideration in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed.

                                      BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

                                                    R.V.EASWAR, J
JANUARY 29, 2013/hs

ITA No.48 & 49/2013                                             Page 4 of 4
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions