CIT vs. INTERDRIL ASIA LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 717 / 2011HC Delhi05 May 20113 pages
For Petitioner: NP SAHNI
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80 HHC for computing book profits under Section 115JB, a view later confirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the penalty imposed was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted because the quantum addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal. The Revenue also appealed against the Tribunal's decision on quantum additions.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when the quantum addition is deleted. Whether deduction under Section 80 HHC is allowable for computing book profits under Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80 HHC,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

%05.05.2011

Present:

Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

+ITA Nos. 717/2011, 875/2008 and 136/2009

Today, ITA No. 717/2011 is listed for hearing which appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed upon the respondent herein under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty is deleted inter alia on the ground that the quantum addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal and, therefore, there was no question of imposition of penalty.

It is mentioned in the appeal that against the decision of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the Revenue has filed ITA Nos.136/2009 and 875/2008 which has been admitted by this Court. In view of this we have called for the records of ITA Nos.136/2009 and 875/2008, and the same are taken up for disposal along with the present appeal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Insofar as, ITA No. 136/2009 is concerned, it is admitted on the where the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80 HHC for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB. This issue has now been authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 305 in favour of the assessee.

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

Following that judgment the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and as a result said appeal is dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid nothing survives in ITA 717/2011, even otherwise in such circumstances penalty could not be imposed as held by this Court in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 327 ITR 543.

As a result, this appeal also stands disposed of.

MAY 5, 2011

fich

-c.m.no-9927/11-for reclification of typographical \nerror/mistakes.

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

% 19.05.2011

Present:

Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Piyush Kaushik, counsel for the respondent.

+ C.M. No. 9927/2011 in ITA No. 717/2011

By way of present application, certain mistakes are pointed out which have occurred in the order dated 05.5.2011.

We find merits in this application and accordingly the corrections stand rectified/modified in the order dated 05.5.2011 in the following manner;

- In the memo of appearance, name of Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. shall deemed to showing Standing counsel be be appellant/Revenue Mr. Piyush Kaushik, counsel the and respondent/assessee. - 2. The answers to the common substantial question of law shall be deemed to have been given in both the appeals i.e. ITA No. 136/2009 & 875/2008. - 3. In para 3 of the order, the word "where" has inadvertently been noted instead of the word "whether", which is rectified accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid modifications made in the order dated 05.5.2011, the application disposed of.

1.

$\mu = 0.00$

A.K. SIKRI, J.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →