2017 (3) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1998-99. 2. The Counsel inform us that the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 1997-98 has been rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. 3. Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act with respect to the issue of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) on dividend and interest income earned from debentures, by holding that the issue involved is a debatable one? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tent of interest and dividend income under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was disallowed in the assessment order dated 10th February, 2000 under Section 143(3) of the Act. (b) Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, without any success on this issue, as the CIT(A) upheld the view of the Assessing Officer that interest and dividend income is not part of profits earned on account of long term finance for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(viii) of the Act. Thus, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 9th February, 2004 of the CIT(A). (c) The respondent assessee accepted the order of the CIT(A) as it was not challenged before the Tribunal. (d) Ho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ltural development / infrastructure facility in India. Moreover, the Tribunal also records a finding of fact that the respondent assessee had in its return of income claimed interest and dividend income as being available for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in its Return of Income and mere rejection of a claim for deduction will not amount to filing inaccurate particulars of income. (h) In the above circumstances, the impugned order holds that no penalty is imposable, notwithstanding the fact that in quantum proceedings, the respondent assessee had accepted the order of the CIT(A), adverse to it on the above issues. (i) Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute the fact that the decision of Karnatak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assessing Officer to examine the sale and lease back agreements afresh to determine its nature. (c) In the meantime, by an order dated 18th March, 2005 the Assessing Officer confirmed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, upon the respondent assessee on the above account. (d) On appeal, the CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above account as imposed by order dated 18th March, 2005 of the Assessing Officer. (e) On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order after recording the fact that in the quantum proceedings by its order dated 22nd May, 2013 it had restored the issue of lease and buy back agreements to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue, also restored the pe....