2015 (9) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 271(1)(c) stands satisfied - Held that:- Order of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, which is not shown to be perverse as Tribunal held that the respondent-assessee having made complete disclosure in the return of income, the fact that during the assessment proceedings a claim was made by the respondent - assessee to the effect that Section 94(7) would not be applicable in their case, ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... P.J. Pardiwala and Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent ORDER Office objections waived. 2. In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2003-04, following question of law has been proposed for our consideration. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not levi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... units would also mean transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act. The respondent - assessee accepted the aforesaid position. However, the assessing officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) upheld the penalty. 4. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the respondent-assessee having made complete disclosure in the ret .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X