TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2002-03. 2. The contention of the Revenue is that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was rightly imposed as during the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee had made a wrong claim in respect of loss suffered on writing off loan of Rs.98.55 lacs, which was granted to DCM International Limited, a subsidiary company for acquiring shares of DCM Toyota Limited. DCM International Limited suffered losses and was not in a position to repay the loan and the same was written off as bad or doubtful debt. 3. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of textile yarn, sale etc. and information technology related services. For the year ending 31st March, 2002, the assessee filed origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss suffered by writing off loan given to DCM International Limited was not allowable as business expenditure and in earlier year interest has been disallowed as the loans were not given for business consideration. He observed that it made no difference whether DCM International Limited was wholly owned subsidiary and rejected the contention of the assessee that the loss/advance was with the intention of carrying on business through the subsidiary company. The contention of the assessee that the loss was a capital loss was also rejected on the ground that the loan was not a capital asset. The fact that loan was granted and had not been paid and was rightly written off was not disputed/challenged. 5. Aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) after recording that the claim was not made in the return of income, claim was made during the course of the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was concealment of income as such. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited, (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it has been held that where an assessee makes a bona fide legal claim but the same is not accepted, penalty should not be levied, provided the assessee has disclosed all material particulars of his income and there was no concealment of facts. 9. We do not see any ground or reason to interfer....