9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantial questions of law are proposed: "a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied in respect of addition made of Rs. 139,60,67,639/- on account of disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 36(i)(viii) holding that the variation in the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) was due to the change in the busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 1961 (the Act). Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 27th February 2001, declaring total income at Rs. 46,53,59,236/- and book profit of Rs. 102,15,58,970/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by disallowing certain deductions. 3. Assessee challenged the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and thereafter before the ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions and thereby has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is department's case that only because assessee has offered income and not claimed deductions in the return of income would not absolve assessee from the liability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ITAT, in our view, correctly held that provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. The ITAT was of the view and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
