TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA on profit from DEPB and computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the act. 3. The fact in brief is that assessee company has filed return of income declaring total income u/s. 115JB of the act to the amount of Rs. 92,81,34,716/- on 31st October, 2001. The assessee company has filed a revised return of income u/s. 115JB of the act of Rs. 92,60,12,264/- on 20th December, 2001. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed on 28th March, 2003 determining total income at Rs. 33,62,42,071/- under normal provision of the act. The assessing officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act in respect of addition made in the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has reduced the book profit by reducing of un-absorbed depreciation of Pradeep Drug Company Ltd merged with the assessee company to the amount of Rs. 3,39,12,399/-. The assessing officer was of the view that assessee has got substantial reserves on merging of the Pradeep Drug Company Ltd. and there was no brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of remaining which can be reduced from the book profit. Therefore, the assessing officer has held that the said amount of Rs. 3,39,12,399/- was deemed income of the asssessee in respect of which inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished. Accordingly, the assessing officer has levied minimum penalty being 100% of tax sought to be evaded at Rs. 33,26,000/-. 4. Aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments of Ld. Authorized Signatory on this account are rejected. Thus, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 4.2. Ground No. 3 pertains to levy of penalty in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA on profit from sale of import jicenses/DEPB at Rs. 11,41,480/-. The submission of Ld. Authorized Signatory on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per para-33 of Accounting Standard-14 as also the provisions of section 72 and 72A. Moreover, the tax has been levied under normal provisions of the Act and hence no penalty can be levied for the additions made under MAT provisions, the Ld. Authorized Signatory has emphasized. I have perused the assessment order and find that the Assessing Officer has assessed the total income of assessee under normal provisions since the tax payable was more under normal provisions as compared to tax payable u/s. 115JB. Thus, the contension of appellant that addition made in the book profit u/s. 115JB has not affected quantum of tax payable is found to be acceptable. In this regard, Circular No. 25/2015 issued by the CBDT on 31.12.2015 has been also reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nalin P. Shah HUF C2013) 40 taxmann.com 86 (Bom.) has held that where assessee had disclosed all details in the return of income, at the highest it can be said that the claim of assessee was not sustainable in law, but there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income liable for penalty u/s. 271(l)(c). This view has been consistently followed by various Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunals in the cases mentioned by the appellant in para-2.18 of the written submission. Therefore, I am of the considered view that penalty is not imposable on this account also. 4.5. In view of the above discussion, thus I hold that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income a....