Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010
So
far as the case i.e CIT Vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 233
CTR 465 (Del). relied by the revenue is concerned, the same is not in
connection with disallowing of the claim u/s 10AA of the Act etc. In
the said case, a sum of Rs.1,21,49,861/- was debited under the head of
equipment return which was not added back in computation of
income. Accordingly, the factual position is different. Therefore, the
law relied by the Ld. Representative of the revenue is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. The CIT(A) has passed the order on
the basis of the factual position of the case as well as by relying upon
the relevant law discussed above. In view of the said circumstances,
we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously
and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate
stage. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Sri Rakesh Suri on 3 February, 2010
"7 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the
submission of the AR. I have also gone through the assessment
order u/s 143(3) order of the ld. CIT(A) and the penalty order u/s
271(1)(c) passed by the AO. I have also gone through the decisions
relied upon by the AO and the Ld. AR. The AO has levied penalty
on the ground that assessee had claimed enhanced deduction u/s
10AA amounting to Rs.1,03,20,914/- as against the deduction of
3
ITA. No. 5308/M/2015
A.Y. 2009-10
u/s 10AA amounting to Rs.1,03,20,914/- as against the deduction
of Rs.69,31,997/- claimed in the original return. He concluded that
with an intention to reduce its profits, the assessee has enhanced
the deduction by including the local sales as export sales and tried
to justify the same by relying on the amendment in the Rule.
However, the basic character for availing the deduction is export
out of India which is not the case of the assessee. Since the
assessee had not exported but claimed the enhanced deduction
with an intention only to educe the profits and taxable income, the
provisions of section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable. He relied on
the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (2010) 233 CTR
(All) 184.
Union Of India And Anr vs Shree Shankar Textiles Ex-Employees ... on 14 September, 2007
5. On appraisal of the above mentioned order, we noticed that the
assessee raised the claim u/s 10AA of the Act on the advice of its CA.
The assessee raised the claim the deduction of Rs.69,31,997/- u/s
10AA of the Act in the original return of the income. The said return
was supported by auditor's report in form No. 56F. In both the returns
assessee has disclosed the material facts before the Authority. There
was no concealment of income nor assessee furnished the inaccurate
particular of income. Undoubtedly, the claim of the deduction u/s
10AA was not accepted and the suitable disallowance by itself does
4
ITA. No. 5308/M/2015
A.Y. 2009-10
not attract penalty in view of the provision of 271(1)C of the Act.. In
this regard we relied upon the decision in the case of Reliance
Petroproducts 321 ITR and in the case of Union of India Vs.
Dharmendra Textiles (supra). However while passing the order, the
CIT(A) has also relied upon the numbers of cases discussed above in
his order which has been passed by the authority on similar lines.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Finance Act, 2018
1