TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction under section 801B of the Act for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, but disallowed similar deduction for assessment year 2006-07 as the assessee's returns were beyond the period prescribed by Section 139(1) of the Act, it cannot be said that the claim for deduction under section 801B of the Act was mala fide or raised with an object to evade tax. Reliance has been placed upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal on the following questions of law:- (i) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in upholding the deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.19,88,401/-by applying the ratio of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.322 ITR 158 while the facts of the case and the questions involved in the present case are completely different from the said case. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... splaced. We have heard counsel for the appellant and find no reason to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 801B and simultaneously imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, but set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.322 ITR 158, wherein, while considering the question of levy of penalty, it was held that the mere fact that an assessee's claim for deduction is not accepted, does not automatically invite penalty. The revenue has not been able to establish any fact that would enable us to hold that deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
