TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd.[ 2013 (3) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in which the same ratio has been laid down. Respectfully following the above, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the revenue. - ITA No. 1098/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2023 - SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Abhijit S. Bapu , Advocate Shri Sreehari Kutsa , Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar , JCIT DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by revenue against order dated 07/10/2022 passed by National Faceless Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational training with regard to computer and technical training. The area of operation was throughout State of Karnataka. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment year 2010-11 on 29-07-2010. 2.2 The A.O. processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 10.03.2011. The case has been selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.09.2011. Later on, the A.O. passed the order u/s 144 for the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.3 The Ld.AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been submitted by the assessee before the authorities below that the notices issued by the assessing officer as well as the penalty notice was not served upon the assessee and assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under appeal filed on 29.07.2010, The aforesaid surplus is less than the maximum amount chargeable to tax and hence, there is no tax payable on the income earned by the appellant trust. 1. 1. However, while filing the return of Income the appellant claimed exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act on the mistaken belief that the income of educational institutions was exempt under that section. The appellant did not realize that realize that the aforesaid exemption u/s. 10 123Cliriiid] of the Act, was not applicable, since Be that as it may, there was no tax payable on the income returned by the appellant in the return of income filed for the year under appeal. 7.7 A Remand report on the submissions made by the appellant was sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (23)(c)(iiiad). However, there is not tax liability on the income of the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that in the quantum proceedings against the assessment order, passed u/s. 144, the Ld.CIT(A) has directed the Ld.AO to pass a speaking order with respect to the expenses found to be not allowable and subsequently the assessing officer has curtailed the addition substantially and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has recorded that 271(1)(c) is no longer sustainable. He submitted that as the quantum additions stands deleted, the penalty then anyway will not survive. 2.6 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
