TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the IT Act imposed by the AO. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the AO observed from the return of income filed by the assesee that the assessee s income included income from salary from Price Water House of which he was a partner. Since income by way of salary or remuneration from a firm was to be assessed under the head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 20.02.2009 in ITA NO.2135/Kol/2008. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee fairly conceded that the issue was covered against the assesee and in favour of the Revenue by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Amal Ganguli vs DCIT (supra). 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that in the instant case penalty of ₹ 37,080/- was imposed u/s 271B of the Act by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. We find that in the similar facts and circumstances of the case the Kolkata A Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amal Ganguli vs DCIT (supra ) has confirmed the levy of penalty by observing as under :- 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. Representatives of the parties and the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of Chartered Accountants and is eligible to carry on the profession of Chartered Accountant. Thus we are of the considered view that the assesee has received the said amount as a professional fee as a partner from the firm. There is no dispute to the fact that the amount received by the assessee by way of salary, allowance, commission, interest from the firm is assessable under section 28(v) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
