TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provisions of law which is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) New Delhi was totally unjustified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,94,450=00 without appreciating the facts of the assessee case and considering the decisions the assessee has relied upon. The assessee while claiming deduction u/s 80 IB as merely followed the law prevailing on the date of filing his return and has followed the decision of the learned Delhi High Court in CIT vs Elteck SGC (P) Ltd (2008) 3 DTR (Del)241. 3. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the cause of action for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) arose on the date of filing of return which was 01/10/2008. On that date the assesse had a previou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. They further observed that by no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 7. Also, in the case of CIT Vs Harshwardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. 259 ITR 112 (Raj.) the Hon'ble High Court held that where an arguable, controversial or debatable deduction is claimed, the claim could not be said to be false, otherwise it would become impossible for any assessee to raise any claims or deduction which might be debatable and it was not the intention of the Legislature to make punishable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return. In respect of such claim, there was no justification for levy of penalty. Asstt. CIT vs Perfect Forgings (2011) 11,-lTR (Trib.) 166/15 Taxmann. corn. 54 (Chd.) e) Making a wrong claim is not par with concealment or giving inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)( c).ITO vs Parikh Investment & Development (P) Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 3371 (2010) 5 Taxrnann. Com.100(mumb) Waiter Saldhana vs Dy. CIT (2011) 44 SOT 26/9 taxman com 72 (mumb). 10. We hope keeping in view the facts of the case and our submission that at the time of filing the return he was within his rights to claim deduction u/s 80 IB following the judgment of Delhi High Court ' and had no means of anticipating the judgment of the Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi High Court on 19/02/08. It was further submitted that assessee filed its return of income on 01.10.2008 following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Court. 2.1. It was submitted that Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings and notice levying penalty was issued to assessee which was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 2.3. It has been contended by Ld.AR that at the time when the return was filed by assessee, it had merely followed the law prevailing as on the date of filing of returns by virtue of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Elteck SGS Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2008) 3 DTR 241 (del). 2.4. It has been submitted that even for assessment year 2007-08 claim of assessee was....