TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices India Pvt. Ltd.(2012 (2) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), 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 ( 2010 (5) TMI 653 - ITAT DELHI) the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med brokerage expenses of ₹ 1,35,666/- in the return of income. However, in the assessment framed u/s 143(3), the said amount was disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) and added back to the total income of the assessee as the assessee did not deduct TDS on the said brokerage expense. Consequently, in the penalty proceeding, the AO levied a penalty of ₹ 45,665/- u/s 271(1)(c) and the same was confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 ITR (Trib) 332 (Del), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the assessee cannot be held guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia). Similar view has been taken by the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
