DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

ITA 701/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 April 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of facts, and the subsequent restriction by DSIR was not a deliberate attempt to furnish inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted as the rigors of Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act for R&D expenditure. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) later restricted the approved expenditure, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to impose a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified when the assessee claimed a deduction based on an auditor's report, which was later restricted by a competent authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(2AB),Section 271(1)(c),Section 37(1)

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. &, Shri Aman Garg, CA
Hearing: 04.04.2024Pronounced: 12.04.2024

PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 27.03.2022 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- (i). “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 60,11,830? (ii)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 60,11,830/- and not appreciating the fact that the assessee company had accepted the quantum addition on the issue of disallowance made by the AO u/s 35(

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35(2AB)

All 842 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(2AB) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →