2026 (4) TMI 1396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'Ld. CIT(A)'), dated 18.02.2025, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 26.03.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs. 43,805/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming it." 3. The brief facts qua the issue are that the appellant is a private limited company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of copper and copper alloys Extrusion, Ingots and Billets. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MAT Credit u/s. 115JAA. 5. It is seen that, the same is not forming part of the P&L account. This difference is just mentioned in the computation of income. However, since the assessee is having substantial b/f losses and unabsorbed depreciation, the tax effect on account of this disclosure has been nullified. But, had the same been recorded in the Trading / P&L account, then this amount would have been included in the Book profit for the purpose of MAT. Therefore, by not showing it in the P&L account, the Book profit has been shown less to the extent of Rs. 2,29,886/-. Accordingly, the book profit for the purpose of book profit u/s. 115JB is enhanced by Rs. 2,29,886/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of total income of the assessee for AY 2013-14. The return of income duly accepted by the Assessing Officer. We note that the levied of penalty was only because of that it was not shown in the book profit under section-115JB of the Act. 9. The assessee has relied the judgements: * CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. * CIT-I vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 36 taxmann.com 533 (Gujarat) * Vipul Life Sciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 7(3), Mumbai 57 taxmann.com 25 (Mumbai-Trib) * Marathon Nextgen Reality & Textiles Ltd. vs. DCIT 36 taxmann.com 3 (Mumbai-Trib.) * Narendra Kumar Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. CIT 174 ITR 479 (MP): 9.1 Apex Court Judgement in case of ....