TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the order of the CIT(A)- III, Pune dt. 30.3.2009 for the A.Y. 2005-06. The Grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have gravely erred in imposing the penalty of ₹ 8,18,920/- u/s 271(1)(c), of Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that, at the time of filing the return Assessee was entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zing the impugned revised return and considering the original return of income. The claim of the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was obviously denied based on the details furnished by the assessee ie original and the invalid revised return. The AO initiated and levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted. On the other hand, Ld DR for the revenue relied heavily on the orders of the revenue. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of the revenue and the case laws relied on by the parties. In the instant case, we find that there is a claim made in the original return and the same was effectively withdrawn by the assessee by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
