Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable where the assessee claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) on income earned after cancellation of its banking licence, and whether the explanation based on section 176(3A) and full disclosure in the return constituted a bona fide explanation.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the assessee was aware that its banking licence had been cancelled and that it was prohibited from carrying on banking business. The statutory auditors had also recorded that the banking regime was no longer applicable. In that background, the claim that the impugned receipts were banking income eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was found to be made in conscious disregard of the legal position. The Tribunal further held that section 176(3A) did not apply because there was no discontinuance of business in the statutory sense, and the assessee's explanation was neither substantiated nor shown to be bona fide. Mere disclosure of the claim in the return did not save the assessee from penalty when the claim itself was knowingly unsustainable.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly sustained and the assessee's appeal was rejected.