Marigold Premises (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No. 1035/PN/2012 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0119 (Pune-Trib) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH 'B', PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, A.M. AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M. M/s. Marigold Premises (P) Ltd. v. DCIT ITA No. 1035/PN/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Date of Pronouncement: 28 August, 2014 Appellant by: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Shri Kulin Mehta Respondent by: Shri A.K. Modi ORDER *R.S. Padvekar, J.M.* In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-Central, Pune dated 20-3-2012 for the assessment year 2003-04 in which the penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) has been confirmed. The assessee has taken the multiple grounds but the issue which arises for our consideration is whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) justified in confirming the penalty levied by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 26,56,333 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act? SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No. 1035/PN/2012
2015 TaxPub(DT) 0119 (Pune-Trib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH 'B', PUNE

BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, A.M. AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M.

M/s. Marigold Premises (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

ITA No. 1035/PN/2012

Assessment Year: 2003-04

Date of Pronouncement: 28 August, 2014

Appellant by: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Shri Kulin Mehta

Respondent by: Shri A.K. Modi

ORDER

R.S. Padvekar, J.M.

In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-Central, Pune dated 20-3-2012 for the assessment year 2003-04 in which the penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) has been confirmed. The assessee has taken the multiple grounds but the issue which arises for our consideration is whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) justified in confirming the penalty levied by the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 26,56,333 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act?