9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the CIT(A) on 28-01-2011 upholding penalty of Rs.33,75,372/- imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the assessment year 2002-03. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction u/ss.10A/10B , inter alia, on interest income on deposits and interest income from staff loans. The action of the AO in not allowing deduction on such interest am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come earned on deposits. Even though the assessee remained unsuccessful before the Tribunal on the question of inclusion of such interest income in the eligible profit for allowing deduction u/s. 10A/10B, still it cannot be said that the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide view about the eligibility of such interest income for the purposes of deduction under two provisions in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no penalty could have been imposed in this regard. The facts of the instant case bear close resemblance inasmuch as the assessee made a claim u/s.10A/10B on the interest income by disclosing all the necessary particulars of income in this regard. Further, the question of eligibility or otherwise of such interest income as not qualifying for deduction u/s.10A/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 6. The assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal alleging that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) is time-barred. In view of our decision in cancelling the penalty on merits, this ground is dismissed as having become infructuous. 7. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
