9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) -13, Mumbai dated 07.06.2012 confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee, a company, while declaring a total income at Rs. NIL had claimed brokerage expenses of Rs. 1,35,666/- in the return of income. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AT & T Communications Services India Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 257 (Del), has held that invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for making disallowance should not be ground for the levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Also, in the case of New Horizon India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 12 ITR (Trib) 332 (Del), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the penalty lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the levy of penalty deserves to be reversed. Resultantly, the impugned penalty stands deleted. However, this deletion of penalty does not provide any immunity to the assessee from the penal proceedings for making a wrong claim of similar nature, if any, in the future. 4. In the result, the appeal filed b y the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
