9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in reducing the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 from Rs. 50,00,000/- to Rs. 5,26,632/- and thereby allowing the relief of Rs. 44,73,368/- to the assessee." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 to the extent of tax sought to be evaded on the positive income and not on the entire evaded income of Rs. 1,15,92,043/- which was the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the order and confirmed by the CIT(A). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing to levy the penalty of Rs. 5,26, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest payment have not gone into giving of interest free loans to its subsidiary companies." 2. On account of following two additions concealment penalty was levied upon the assessee vide order dated 9/3/2006 passed under section 271(1)(c) Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). (a) Disallowance of lease rent - Rs. 1,52,61,839/- (b) Disallowance of interest of loans to to group companies - Rs. 11,75,175/- 3. So far as it relates to addition mentioned at Sl.No.2, i.e. a sum of Rs. 11,75,175/- the said addition has been deleted in quantum proceedings by the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/03/2013 passed in ITA No.4380/Mum/2010 ( copy of order filed at pages 275 to 279 of the paper book) and vide following observations the addition was deleted. " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Halco Ltd., ITA No.5793/Mum/2000. 5. On these facts, it was the common contention of the parties that similar issue was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of assessment year 1999-2000 to be decided denovo as subsequently Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd., 304 ITR 308 held that amendment made in explanation -4 to section 271(1)(c) (iii) w.e.f. 1/4/2003 was clarificatory in nature and has retrospective effect. The order of Tribunal, which is dated 12/11/2008 in ITA No.3155/Mum/2006 (copy placed at pages 255 to 256 of the paper book) is reproduced below. "This appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment year 1999-2000 is directed against the order of CIT(A). The ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
