Case Law Details
S.H.R. Trading (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
In facts of the present case, the appellant has admittedly made a claim in its return of income which is prohibited under the Act. The claim for deduction under section 54 of the Act could only be made by individuals or HUF, while the appellant is admittedly a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Thus this was not a case, where a claim made was debatable or claim being made in the absence of any prohibition to make such a claim under the Act. In the aforesaid cases, one could possibly infer that the claim was made under the bonafide interpretation of the law. In the present facts, this is admittedly not so. In the present facts, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming a deduction which is prohibited in case of assessee.
In fact the Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (supra) has itself observed that penalty is imposable when an assessee furnishes inaccurate particulars. In this case all the accounts under the Act, have as a finding of fact found that in making a claim under section 54 of the Act, the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars. Thus the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposable upon the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) challenges the order dated 2-7-2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 2-7-2014 relating to assessment year 2009-10 upholds the penalty imposed upon the appellant under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
