TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted the penalty - HELD THAT:- Sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) provides mechanism for quantification of penalty. It contemplates that the assessee would be directed to pay a sum in addition to taxes, if any, payable him, which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arkar, AR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad dated 20.1.2014 passed for the Asstt.Year 2010-11. 2. Solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleing penalty of ₹ 101,24,35,800/- which was imposed by the AO under section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee at the very outset submitted that dispute travelled to the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, and the Hon ble High Court has held that the assessee is entitled for the benefit under sections 11 and 12. Its activities are to be considered for charitable purpose. Judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court is reported in 396 ITR 323. In view of Hon ble High Court s decision, addition made by the AO would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
