2016 (7) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....987/Ahd/2007 for assessment year 20012002 and Tax Appeal No.901 of 2008 challenges the order dated 26/10/2007 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.1239/Ahd/2007 for assessment year 20012002. 2. The short facts of the case are that the assessee-Cooperative Society was engaged in the manufacturing of milk and milk products popularly known as "Dudhsagar Dairy". The return of inomce was filed on 30/10/2001 declaring NIL total income. The same was processed and it was selected for scrutiny. The AO inter alia noticed that the assessee has been valuing its closing stock by deducting 20% of the selling price, as also, gross profit disclosed by the assessee was only 3% and therefore assessee should have only deducted 3% gross profit from the selling pric....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tency in the closing stock and therefore deduction under Section 80I ought not to have been granted by the learned Tribunal or the CIT (A). He has further contended that there is discrepancy in the deduction claimed under Section 80I and therefore the same ought not to have been granted. He, therefore, contended that the question raised in this appeal may be answered in favour of the department. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Manish Shah, learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by a decision in case of Commissioner of IncomeTax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) and has relied upon paragraph Nos.11 and 12 which reads as under: "11. We have already seen th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the ....