TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted by the CIT (Appeals). Reference was made to the judgment passed in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. s case [ 2006 (8) TMI 123 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] on the identical issue has already been deleted by the CIT (A)-1, Ludhiana - In this backdrop, the appeal filed by the assessee (respondent herein) was allowed. Against the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, which was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent(s) : Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate. RITU BAHRI, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of ITA Nos. 283, 270 and 276 of 2014 together as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals. For reference, facts are being taken from ITA No. 283 of 2014. 2. The instant appeal (ITA No. 283-2014) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 14.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (Central), Gurgaon, relating to the assessment year 2007-2008, has been dismissed. 3. Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt. In this backdrop, vide order dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure A-2), sale tax exemptions of Rs. 32,65,57,714/- were held to be a revenue receipt of the assessee company and addition was made to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter, penalty of Rs. 10,99,19,325/- was imposed upon the assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act and show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (A), Gurgaon, which was allowed vide order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure A- 3). While allowing the appeal, it was observed that as per Section 271 (1) (C) of the Income Tax Act, penalty is to be levied if, the assessee had concealed particulars of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. M/s Amtek Auto Ltd., ITA No.38 of 2010 (decided on 26.02.2013), wherein it has been held that merely for the reason that the assessee had claimed the expenditure to be revenue would not render the assessee liable to penalty proceedings. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gurdaspur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., (2013) 354 ITR 27 (P H), there was no dispute about the quantum of receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government. The assessee had reflected the same as capital receipt, whereas it had been treated to be a revenue receipt. The Court observed that the issue, whether the amount of grant-in-aid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
