TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty not warranted for disallowance on legal grounds under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri Versus The Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.</h3> The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri Versus The Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:- Appeals filed by Revenue against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for different assessment years.- Disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) and subsequent penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.- Application of legal precedent regarding levy of penalty for inaccurate particulars of income.Analysis:Issue 1: Appeals filed by RevenueThe Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune addressed five appeals filed by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for different assessment years (2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2008-09). As the facts and issues were identical in all appeals, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of them through a common order.Issue 2: Disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) and Penalty ProceedingsThe respondent, a cooperative bank, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2004-05, declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed certain deductions leading to a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, citing legal precedents that a mere disallowance of a claim does not warrant a penalty. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the disallowance was based on a legal ground and did not involve inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support its conclusion.Issue 3: Application of Legal PrecedentThe Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct (P) Ltd. and Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., highlighting that a claim made in the return, even if not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the mere disallowance of a claim on a legal ground does not attract a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, applying the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune dismissed all appeals of the Revenue, emphasizing that a mere disallowance of a claim on a legal ground does not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of legal precedents and the absence of inaccurate particulars of income in the case at hand.
TaxTMI 