Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
G.E. Money Financial Services Pvt. ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 7 May, 2018 cites

Seshasayee Paper & Board Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 May, 2015

Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 298 (Delhi). Therefore, it cannot be said that in all the cases the provision for NPA is not allowable at all. Since the return was filed based on the then prevailing view as approved by the Tribunal, it can be considered to be a bona fide view. Further, when the provision was made, the same was based on the prudential norms issued by RBI, which the assessee is mandatorily required to follow. The claim at thime of filing of return of Income is also found plausible in accordance with the view adopted by the Tribunal. Merely because assessee has not Page | 6 withdrawn its claim even after the decision of Honourable supreme court in assesseement / appeal proceedings after the decision of the Honourbale supreme court cannot be used against the assessee for levy of penalty. The decision rendered by honourable supreme court was final and therefore withdrawal of the claim or otherwise does not make any difference in so far as the issue of penalty is concerned. Therefore, if can be said that when the claim was made, the same was bona fide claim supported by judicial opinion of the Tribunal, penalty there on cannot be levied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 213 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001

The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9 held that penalty need not be levied when an explanation has been offered by the assessee and where the explanation is found not to be false and is bona fide. Based on facts of the present case and the order of the Tribunal extracted hereinabove, it is not a fit case for confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. We are, therefore, unable to confirm the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Hence, we reverse the finding of the CIT (A) and direct the ld AO to delete the penalty on the disallowance of claim of assessee of loss on non- performing assets based on RBI guidelines/ directions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 288 - Full Document

Phillips India Ltd. (Earlier Punjab ... vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 October, 2004

8. In the present case with the assessee has filed his return of income on 31st of October 2008 was a decision of the coordinate bench wherein it has been held that provision on the non-performing asset is an allowable expenditure. The assessee has also put in a note in the computation of Page | 5 total income mentioning the decision as well as the claim of the assessee. Therefore, at the time of filing of the return of income it is apparent that assessee was under bona fide belief that the above claim is allowable to the assessee, which is also supported by the decision of the coordinate bench. Subsequently there is a change in the judicial precedent and the matter reached up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where in case of Southern technologies versus ACIT 320 ITR 577 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the such deduction is not allowable if it is not in accordance with the provisions of the income tax act. However, there the dispute with respect to the allowance of the above claim rests.. However, it is apparent that the claim was bona fide and was not false as at the time when the return was filed there was difference of judicial opinion as to allowability of the provision for NPA on the basis of RBI Guidelines. The related to allowance of the was resolved only after the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal was rendered in the case of New India Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 112 TTJ (Delhi) 917. This decision was rendered on 26-10-2007. Prior to this there was a divergence of opinion expressed by the various orders of coordinate benches?
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 40 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1