TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 raising following question for our consideration : Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Issue pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for different additions. When such penalty order passed was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer by the ITAT. The issues relating to disallowance of ₹ 54,71,162/- and ₹ 68.40 crores have also been sent by to the file of Assessing Officer. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is not sustainable. The penalty in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA we find that this ground is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, the authorities held that the claim cannot be stated to be a wrong claim. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC), such penalty was deleted. 4. To our mind, the entire issue is based on appreciation of facts. Substantial portion of the penalty deleted arose on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
