TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the principle of mutuality of this receipt is a bonafied claim and does not attract the penalty under section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality of infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for all these assessment years. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.7108/Mum/2013, ITA No.7109 to 7111/Mum/2013, ITA No.7112 & 7113/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2015 - Vijay Pal Rao, JM And D Karunakar Rao, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Neil Philip For the Respondent : Shri Rahul K Hakani ORDER Per Bench These six appeals by the revenue are directed against the six separate orders of ld. CIT(A) dated 23.9.2013 arising from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting he penalty amounting to ₹ 22,00,031/- on the quantum addition made on account of receipt of transfer fees of ₹ 15,45,000/- and TDR premium receipts of ₹ 56,44,670/- ignoring that these were not voluntary contributions and there is no principle of mutuality involved, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty amounting to ₹ 22,00,031/- ignoring that the decision of the Hon ble ITAT deleting similar quantum addition made in respect of receipt of transfer fees for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 has not been accepted by the department and further appeal has been filed . 4. The penalty has been l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. 6. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that there are divergent view and findings of the Tribunal in assessee s own cases on the issue of addition on account of transfer fees and TDR premium received by the assessee. For the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06, this Tribunal vide order dated 24.6.2011 decided the quantum appeals in favour of the assessee whereas for the assessment years under consideration of all these appeals, the Tribunal subsequently, decided the issue against the assessee vide order dated 4.9.2013. The issue is now settled by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 17.7.2014 in the appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
