SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 1825

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, R.V.EASWAR
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I) – Appellant
Versus
Jakson Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing For the Respondent: None

JUDGMENT :

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J (ORAL);—

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 was Rs. 15.4 lakhs whereas in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 the penalty amount was Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 2,67,48,176/-. In the penalty proceedings the computation with regard to the deduction under section 80-IB has ultimately been taken at Rs. 2,52,41,632/-, which is the sam





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top