TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. The Tribunal therefore referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] and held that merely because a claim has been rejected, that by itself would not mean that penalty should also attach. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 487 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Akil Kureshi And Biren Vai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of ₹ 20,05,740/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act? 2. The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer having levied the penalty, the assessee preferred appeal. The Appellate Commissioner deleted the penalty upon which the Revenue approached the Tribunal. Tribunal by impugned judgement confirmed the view of the CIT(A) making followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. 3. From the record, it emerges that the assessee had raised a certain claim of deduction. Though this claim was rejected, it was found that the assessee had not supplied inaccurate particulars of the income. The Tribunal therefore referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 and held that merely because a claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
