TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2005-06 against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31.08.2010 deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1)( c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is an Investment Bank and is a tax resident of Singapore , had been registered as Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) with SEBI. The assessee had taken forward contract in foreign exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 3. L.d CIT(A) has cancelled the said penalty levied by AO considering that the assessment has been made on the basis of difference of opinion regarding interpretation of law on the question of characterization of gains from cancellation of forward contract for foreign currency as income from other sources ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the above facts. 5. There is no dispute that when the very addition for which the penalty has been levied has been deleted in the quantum appeal, there is no reason survival or sustenance of penalty u/s 271 (1)( c ) of the Act. In this regard, we are supported by the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V/s Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation (2005) 274 ITR 640 (Raj) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
