Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)Mindmill Software Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 10 February, 2017
8. Ld. counsel referred to the decision of ITAT, Delhi Benches in the
case of M/s Mindmill Software Limited vs. ITO vide ITA No.242/Del/2016
order dated 10.02.2017.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 vs Shri Neeraj Jindal on 9 February, 2017
He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri
Neeraj Jindal and Others vide ITA No.463/2016 & Others, order dated
09.02.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :-
C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010
15. Now, coming to the merits of the addition, I find that as far as
deduction for HRA was claimed by assessee, the same was denied only for
the reason that actual payment had not been made by assessee. It is not
disputed that the assessee was residing in the house of his mother to whom
the rent was payable. Therefore, at best, it can be said to be a wrong claim
in view of Explanation B to section 10(13A) but that does not imply that the
assessee furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. The amount
was payable to mother and not to any outsider. This goes to show
assessee's bona-fide. I, therefore, do not find any reason to saddle the
assessee with penalty on account of claim of deduction of HRA made in the
original return, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroporducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC),
wherein, it has been held as under :-
The Coinage Act, 2011
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1