TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 17.03.2010 of the CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata pertaining to A.Yr. 2003-04. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in relating to the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act to the extent of ₹ 28,13,178/- and in ITA No.1914/Kol/2010 in respect of levy of penalty of ₹ 17,66,109/- u/s 271E of the IT Act. 3. The bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied penalty of ₹ 17,66,109/- u/s 271E of the Act. And in respect of the repayment of the said loan during the financial year immediately in the preceding year. 3.1. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed both the penalties by observing that in the tax audit report as per clause 24(a)(ii) the assessee company has taken a loan from its director Shri Dipak Kumar Naha and the company ahs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lications Ltd. cited supra has held as under :- Held, dismissing the appeal, that the transaction between the assessee and the director-cum-shareholder was not a loan or deposit and it was only a current account in nature and no interest was being charged for the above transaction. The deletion of penalty was justified. 6.1. Respectfully following the same, we find no justification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
