TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue. It is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 25/02/2012 for assessment year 2003-04. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing A.O. not to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 on addition made of pre-payment of sales tax liability. 2. On the facts and in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot dispute that additions have been deleted in quantum proceedings. However, he relied upon the order passed by Ld. A.O. 3. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully considered. On the issue of pre-payment of taxes addition in the aforementioned order has been deleted by the Tribunal with the following observations: 2. In Ground No.1, the assessee has raised the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Sulzer India Ltd (supra), we cannot take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Special Bench. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sulzer India Ltd(supra) , we uphold the grievance of the assessee and the assessee succeeds on this issue. 6. Ground No.1 is thus allowed. 4. On the issue regarding deduction under section 80M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 115-0 (5) of the I.T.Act, as per the said section, no deduction under any other provisions of the Act shall be allowed to a company or a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section(1) of Section 115-0(5) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
