TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Wings A to D. There is no dispute with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the revised return was filed only after the survey was conducted by the revenue. This is not factually correct as the Tribunal in the impugned order observes that there was nothing on record to indicate what was the finding in survey. In the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 1 February 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2004-05. The impugned order set aside penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on invoking Section 273B of the Act. 3. The revenue has framed the following questions of law for our consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect called New Haridas Park consisting of Wings being A to D on the ground that as it is part of the original project of Haridas Project consisting of Wings A to G. The Revised Return was held to be invalid by the Assessing Officer who also imposed a penalty of ₹ 17.87 lacs under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for having furnished inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of Section 273B of the Act. 6. The grievance of the revenue is that the respondent-assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Wings A to D. There is no dispute with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the revised return was filed only after the survey was conducted by the revenue. This is not factually correct as the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
