2025 (2) TMI 1324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an appeal by the Revenue, against order dated 16.03.2011, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai ('ld.CIT(A) for short), deleting penalty imposed of Rs. 65,78,002/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2005-06. 2. The Registry has notified delay of 53 days in filing the appeal. The Assessing Officer (AO) t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, was of the view that allocation of various expenses between the eligible and non-eligible units are disproportionate. Therefore, he interfered with the accounts of the assessee, insofar as, the allocation of expenses are concerned and recomputed the deduction u/s.80IB/80IC of the Act. As a result of such re-computation, there was variation in income. Based on such variation in income, the A.O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enses which were furnished by the appellant and was the basis of claim of deduction by the appellant. There is no finding in the Assessment Order that such particulars were found to be inaccurate, untrue or false. The AO has misconstrued the ruling of the Apex Court. The appellant claimed deduction of a particular amount which in the opinion of the AO was excessive The claim as such was not inaccu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....garding the genuineness of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. The point of difference between the assessee and the A.O. is only with regard to allocation of expenses between the eligible and noneligible units. While, the assessee has allocated the expenses between the units adopting a particular method consistently followed, the A.O. has made the allocation in a different manner. However, th....