TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – the AO did not accept the assessee’s contention but computed the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - merely because certain disallowance is made u/s 14A rejecting the assessee’s contention that no disallowance is called for would not be sufficient to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - there is no allegation of the Revenue that the assessee furnished any details which are found to be false o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these two appeals is against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under:- Name of assesse Amount M/s Espire Infolabs Pvt.Ltd. 1,21,185/- M/s Espire Infrastructure Corp.Ltd. 99,177/- 3. Since the facts in both the appeals are ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned DR and perused relevant material placed before us. From a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer asked the assessee why the disallowance should not be made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In response to this query, the assessee has submitted that the assessee had made some investment of surplus funds in the mutual funds and equity shares. The assessee has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158. 6. The facts in the case of M/s Espire Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. are identical. In this case, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
