A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai on 27 February, 2018
Our attention was also drawn to the decision
in the case of ITO v. Techdrive (India) Private Limited reported in (2010)124
ITD 249(Del-trib.). It was submitted that the department is unnecessarily
putting a condition that undertaking should be owned by the assessee while
requirement to get deduction u/s. 80IC is only with respect to
manufacturing . Our attention was also drawn to provisions of Section 10B
and it was submitted that there is no requirement to own undertaking before
claiming deduction u/s. 10B. It was submitted that the present proceedings
are penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) and a plausible claim is made by the
assessee after relying on judicial precedents which did not found favour with
the Revenue. It was submitted that it is not an appeal against the quantum
assessment . It was submitted that since explanation was bona-fide and
hence assessee should be granted relief in the penalty proceedings.