TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment which is contrary to the claim in the return filed, he automatically gets immunity from penalty. In the decision in the case of MAK Data P Ltd [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] held that the assessee's contention that the income was offered to tax to by peace by itself would not be an immunity from penalty. As is well settled, the penalty may still not be sustained. Reliance in this re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) dated 26.6.2015 raising following questions for our consideration:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of excess claim of ₹ 131.50 lacs made by the assessee on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted such penalty upon which the Revenue has filed this appeal. 3. Certain additions having been sustained in the hands of the assessee during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2004-05, penalty proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment which is contrary to the claim in the return filed, he automatically gets immunity from penalty. In the decision in the case of MAK Data P Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court held that the assessee's contention that the income was offered to tax to by peace by itself would not be an immunity from penalty. Nevertheless, the question whether particular claim made by the assessee was due to bonaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
