TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) nor Tribunal have based the conclusions on the question of very imposability of penalty, to us it plainly appears that even if the judgement in case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2017 (5) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) were to be reversed and quantum additions were to be sustained, there is no question of imposing penalty. All along AUDA had filed its return and put forth the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue challenging judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.03.2018 raising following question for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the penalty of ₹ 101,24,35,719/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive, without appreciating the fact that the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted penalty proceedings. By the order dated 12.03.2015, he imposed penalty of ₹ 101.24 cores being 1/3rd of the maximum imposable penalty. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the ground that assessee has succeeded before the Gujarat High Court in quantum additions. Same was the view expressed by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue vehemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All along AUDA had filed its return and put forth the exemption claimed. Though such a claim is granted is not besides the point. This is not a case where a totally unsustainable and fictitious claim is put forth. This is a case where a statutory body has been contending that looking to its creation, constitution and kind of activities carried on, exemption under the Act is available. This claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
