TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in concurring with the Ld. A.O. in holding that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of MAT credit b/fd from earlier years and thereby made concealment of such tax credit which has been worked out to be Rs. 11,32,386/- without appreciating the fact that at the time of filing return of income, the assessed income of two earlier years was not available either with the department or with the assessee, hence levy of penalty of Rs. 11,32,386/- is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in concurring with the Ld. A.O. in upholding penalty on the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 56,556....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had claimed wrong amount in the return of income. As per the AO if the assessee company was not aware of the assessed income of earlier years at the time of filing of ITR of Assessment year 2010-11, it ought to have revised its return of income for assessment year 2010-11 i.e.; the impugned assessment year, by 31/03/2012, which they failed to do. As per the A.O. the assessee had deliberately carried forward excess MAT credit despite knowing the provisions of the Act and the claim of wrong amount of tax credit clearly fell within the purview of the provisions of section 271(1)(c). Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Harish P. Mashruwala v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 38 SOT 398, wherein it was held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried forward. The D.R. on the other hand stated that the assessee had concealed the facts in the case and it should have revised its claim of MAT credit once the assessments of the relevant years were framed. As per the D.R., failure to do so amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, justifying the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).Also on the issue of levy of penalty on disallowance made u/s 14A, while the A.R. placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322, the D.R pleaded that the assessee ought to have made the disallowance since it was statutory. The D.R stated that by not having made the disallowance ,the assessee had furnished inaccurate par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit, has to be adjudicated upon. Income is understood to mean "the money that a person earns from work, business etc". The definition of income under section 2(24) of the Income tax Act,1961, also indicates likewise. MAT on the other hand is tax paid on book profits. MAT credit is income tax paid on book profits in earlier years which is allowed to be setoff against taxes paid on business income in succeeding years. It is in the nature of taxes paid in advance. Income contemplated under section 271(1)(c), is the income on which taxes are to be computed and paid. This is evident from section 271(1)(c) itself which quantifies the amount of penalty, to the tax sought to be evaded by concealing / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Tax....