TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Year 2001-2002 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs.5.08 crore. During the course of assessment proceedings a revised return was filed on 07.03.2003 claiming credit for additional TDS. Thereafter, a revised computation was also filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer framed assessment making additions, inter alia, on account of curtailment of deduction u/s 80-IB and disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, offered income in respect of duty draw back and dividend from foreign companies, which was also subjected to penalty. Similarly, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance and imposition of penalty continue to remain the same in the instant year as well, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty on this issue. 4. The next issue is against the deletion of penalty on disallowance made u/s 14A. The Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A by considering that the assessee employed interest bearing funds utilized for making investment in shares, from which exempt income was earned. The assessee contended that no interest bearing funds were invested in shares. Eventually disallowance u/s 14A was made by rejecting the assessee's contention on which penalty has been imposed by the A.O. The question of disallowance u/s 14A in the present case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r taxation in assessment year 2002-2003 on which the Assessing Officer chose not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The decisions relied on by the learned Departmental Representative are not relevant on the ground that in those cases the assessee came out with the offer of the income when it was finally detected by the Revenue. It was under those circumstances that the Hon'ble Courts justified the imposition of penalty. Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that there is nothing in assessment order to divulge that the assessee offered income pursuant to any detection by the Revenue. Rather it is suo moto offering by the assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the considered opinion that the penalty was rightly del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee made a mala fide claim in the shape of depreciation on the Ozone grant received from the State Government. It is axiomatic that when a possible legally sustainable view is taken by the assessee on the deductibility of a particular amount, there can be no question of imposition of penalty, if such view is finally tuned down by the A.O. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty on this issue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Assessment Year 2002-2003 9. It has been candidly admitted by both the sides that the facts and circumstances of this appeal in respect of penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction u/s 80M. Both the sides are agreeable that the facts and circumstances of penalty on curtailment of deduction u/s 80-IB and 80HHC are similar to those for the earlier years. Following the view taken hereinabove we hold that no penalty can be imposed. The view taken by the learned CIT(A) is upheld. 13. The only other issue which survives for our consideration in this appeal is against the deletion of penalty on curtailment of deduction u/s 80M. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal, in the quantum proceedings, decided this issue in assessee's favour and the Department did not file any further appeal against this order before the Hon'ble High Court. In view of the fact that the deduction u/s 80M has b....