| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 227/Rjt/2015
2020 TaxPub(DT) 3252 (Rkt-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Penalty was deleted on the basis of the ratio laid down in the matter of CIT v. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC), whereunder imposition of penalty on the sole reason of wrong claim or excess claim for deduction which was not found sustainable by the authority was nullified. In assessee's own case, High Court [[Tax Appeal No. 52 of 2011, dt. 18-10-2011]] was pleased to decide the identical issue in favour of the assessee.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted penalty - No discrepancy was brought by Revenue against order of CIT(A) -
The instant appeal filed by Revenue was directed against the order passed by CIT(A) arose out of the penalty order passed by the ACIT under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2008-09. Held: Penalty was deleted on the basis of the ratio laid down in the matter of CIT vs. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC), whereunder imposition of penalty on the sole reason of wrong claim or excess claim for deduction which was not found sustainable by the authority was nullified. In assessee's own case, High Court [[Tax Appeal No. 52 of 2011, dt. 18-10-2011]] was pleased to decide the identical issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, there was no discrepancy in the order passed by CIT(A) so as to warrant interference.
Followed:CIT v. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC) Anil Rai v. State of Bihar 2009 TaxPub(EX) 0022 (SC) CIT v. Siyaram Metals P Ltd [TAX APPEAL No. 52 of 2011, dt. 18-10-2011]
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2008-09
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963
Rule 34
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|