AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act").
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act").

    Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modipon Ltd.

    ORDER

    1. Delay condoned.

    2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

    ANNEX

    [2018] 100 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi)

    HIGH COURT OF DELHI

    Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Modipon Ltd.

    S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND A.K. CHAWLA, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2018 JANUARY 8, 2018

    Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. for the Appellant.

    ORDER

    1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed by CIT(A) order. The Assessing Officer (AO) has imposed penalty on the ground that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). The finding rendered was that the payment made under the VRS scheme could have been deducted only to the extent of 20% under Section 35DDA of the Act. The CIT (A) however, set aside the penalty; the ITAT concurred.

    2. It is contended that Section 35DDA of the Act specifically provided to cater to situation, i.e. provision for VRS; the assessee was under a duty to claim benefits in its terms rather than, as a deduction of the whole. By not claiming the correct deduction, the assessee, it is argued, filed inaccurate particulars, which amounted to misleading the Revenue.

    3. This Court notices that ITAT in its impugned order has relied upon a decision ot this Court in CIT v. Dalmia Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. [2010] 186 Taxmann 155 (Delhi) . The High Court in that case too, was concerned with a somewhat similar situation i.e. the claim made in respect of VRS benefits, and, whether claim of whole amount as a deduction, is contrary to Section 35DDA of the Act and, could result in a justifiable penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. It was ruled that such could not be the consequence and the penalty was set aside.

    4. Having regard to the circumstance that the lower Appellate Authority has rendered a concurrent finding favouring the assessee and the benefits arc granted in terms of the previous decision in Dalmia Agencies (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

    sunil

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modipon Ltd.
    (Oct 22, 2018)