|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1962 Records
-
2017 (3) TMI 1966
Direction for transmission of money - HELD THAT:- It is considered just, necessary and proper to direct the State Bank of India, Erode Branch, Tamil Nadu, to transmit the entire money lying with the said State Bank of India branch to the credit of CEPL along with the interest, that may have accrued thereon till date, to the Canara Bank, Green Park Branch, New Delhi, under intimation to the latter, forthwith.
Renotify on 21st August, 2017.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1965
Rectification of mistake - LTCG - Applicability of provisions of section 50C to the leasehold rights in the land - HELD THAT:- We find that in this ground of appeal the assessee has no where contested that provisions of section 50C were not applicable on leasehold properties. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there is a mistake apparent on record in not adjudicating the issue which has not been raised by way of grounds of appeal.
Assessee conceded that there is no such mention in the grounds of appeal and that grounds of appeal were drafted by earlier counsel. Hence in our considered opinion, there is no mistake apparent from record in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Hence we dismiss the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1964
Eligibility to balance 10% of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) - claim of carry forward to next AY - number of days of use - HELD THAT:- As the issue raised in the captioned appeals, is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered M/s. Shri T.P. Textiles Private Limited[2017 (3) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], M/s. Brakes India Limited [2017 (4) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and M/s. Multivista Global Limited [2017 (4) TMI 411 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held that word 'new' which precedes 'machinery or plant' is indicative of the type of asset, on which, additional depreciation can be claimed.
In our opinion, it does not, in any way, limit or restrict the claim for additional depreciation, to the previous year, in which, the said asset is installed and used. Accordingly, in our view, the Assessee cannot be prevented from claiming balance additional depreciation in the following year, thus decided in favour of assessee
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1963
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- E-Infochips Banglore Ltd. is engaged in both software development as well as ITes. Assessee being characterized as a routine service provider, the above company cannot be considered as comparable on functional basis. Thus, in absence of segmental information we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the final list of comparables.
Infinite Data Systems Pvt. Ltd. company has no sufficient segmental information and functionally dissimilar.
Persistent Systems Limited company was involved in software development, software products and marketing. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly published segmental data was not available. In these circumstances, having regard to the specificity of the Transfer Pricing Rules under Rule 10(b) to 10(e) of the Income Tax Rules, the data of the said firm, i.e., Persistent Systems Ltd. could not have been included.
Thirdware Solutions company cannot be selected as comparable for TP analysis.. Since no distinguishing features of the functional profile of this company and the assessee for the current year vis-a-vis the preceding year have been brought out to our notice, following the preceding, we direct the TPO/AO for removal of this company from the list of comparables.
PSI Data Systems company had been merged w.e.f. 12.08.2009 with Aditya Birla Minacs IT Services Ltd. and as such, said company had no locus standi for the whole year. Therefore, the TPO has rightly excluded this company from the list of comparables.
Crazy Infotech Ltd.- As assessee company is engaged in 100% export of software development services to its holding company. The total percentage of turnover in software development segment of the aforesaid company is only 4.66% of the total turnover of Assessee Company, which too was generated from the state of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh but not from foreign export as in the case of assessee. Therefore, the TPO has rightly excluded this company from the set of comparables.
Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be treated as comparable with the assessee company as assessee is also a captive service provider and also not owning any branded products with no expenditure of its own on R&D etc.
Arithmetical errors while computing the net margin of comparable companies - Assessee did not specify as to what arithmetical inaccuracies have been committed by the TPO. Therefore, the assessee is directed to demonstrate before the TPO the errors whatsoever.
Use of multiple year data and determining the Arm’s Length Margin - Rule 10B(4) of the Income-tax Rules clearly stipulates that normally current year data should be used. The proviso to the Rule allows the use of data pertaining to previous years only if the taxpayer can prove that there were certain factors relevant to those years that have affected the transfer prices of the year under review. However, the assessee has failed to bring any fact on record to cover the case of assessee under Rule 10B(4). The TPO has relied on a number of cases for the proposition that normally current year data should be used.
Working capital adjustment margins of the comparable companies, the advances have not been considered for calculating working capital adjustment - We are afraid that while calculating the working capital adjustment, it is necessary to ascertain as to whether the advance so given was for revenue items purpose or capital items purpose. If the amount is found to be advanced for Revenue items purposes, then it should be considered for working capital adjustment and if it is found otherwise, the same cannot be considered for working capital adjustment. Therefore this issue is restored to the file of AO/TPO for deciding the same afresh in the light of observations made above. Accordingly, this ground deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA - We are unable to countenance this view of the AO because the assessee brought in India sale proceeds from rendering of services to its AE. The remuneration model has been decided by the parties inter se with a cost plus mark-up, which in the instant case, is 15% of costs. What the assessee has realized in India is nothing, but, sale proceeds of software service provided by it to its foreign AE, which include not only the costs incurred by it in providing software services but also such mark-up. This, in our considered opinion, satisfies the requirement of receipt of foreign currency in India. Since the assessee has satisfied all the requisite conditions for availing of the benefit of deduction u/s 10AA, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities below erred in refusing to grant such deduction. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1962
Exemption u/s 11 - opinion of the CIT(A) that the assessee was entitled to claim charitable status u/s 11 - ITAT also noted that the question of law urged by the Revenue in that previous year was a subject matter of an appeal that was rejected by this Court.
HELD THAT:- In ITA [2015 (10) TMI 2865 - DELHI HIGH COURT] pertaining to AY 1994-95, whereto the issue related to the benefit of Section 11 claimed by the assessee revenue’s appeal for AY 1993-94, involving the same question, was dismissed.
In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. The question is answered against the Revenue.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1961
Addition u/s 41 - Cessation of liability - HELD THAT:- In case of Sri Bimal Kumar Gupta as shown by the assessee on the liabilities side and when the sale crystallized by handing over possession of the property, the advance after adjustment of the cost was moved to the income side of the P&L Account (in case if the adjustment results in surplus and when there is a deficit, it will come in the expenditure side). So, we take note that after completing the legal formalities and handing over the property during the F.Y. 2012-13, the profit from the sale of land to Sri Bimal Kumar Gupta of Rs. 34 Lakhs has been transferred to the P&L Account of M/s Abir International in which the assessee is a proprietor.
We note that the cost of land purchased from Dindayal Gupta of Rs. 26 Lakhs was adjusted against the advances which was duly reflected in the books as “Advance paid on the asset side”. So, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case this transaction of the assessee cannot attract Section 41(1). So, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) and we confirm the same.
Liability from M/s Kit Sales (P) Ltd. Liability shown by the assessee without being written off by the creditor cannot attract Section 41(1) of the Act as rightly held by the Ld. CIT (A) and even if advance as claimed by the assessee is found to be non-genuine from the very inspection itself, at least in terms of Section 41(1) of the Act, there is no cure for it. May be the said amount which is credited in the books of the assessee could attract Section 68 of the Act which could have been done in the year when the amount was credited in the books of the assessee i.e. in the A.Y. 2007-08, since the fact remains that the said credit entry in the books of account happened on 28.08.2006. So, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) and we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
Liability from B. Nirupam& Co. - Liabilities have been existing from a very long time and same according to the assessee are still liabilities on its books and just because the notices were unserved does not mean that there is cessation or remission of liabilities and unless there is at least a unilateral act on the part of the creditors, that they have waived off their right to receive payment or by operation of law, there should be cessation of liability, which is not the case, so, Section 41(1) of the Act cannot be applied in the facts of the case; and that Section 41(1) can be applied only when the department has allowed expenditure, loss or trading liability as deduction in a previous A.Y. and there is a benefit which has accrued to the assessee in the assessment year in question, then only Section 41(1) can get attracted. The AO has not brought anything on record to show that in the earlier years the assessee has got any deduction on account of loss, expenditure or trading liability and that in the instant assessment year got benefit by remission or cessation of it, without which Section 41(1) cannot be invoked.
Crystalization of income - AO has pre-poned the income without appreciating that the assessee has offered Rs. 5 Lakhs in the next assessment year and followed the accounting standards as prescribed by the ICAI. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal.
Disallowance of compensation - payment in respect was disallowed, because 5 persons to whom the payments were made could not be established by documentary evidence but there were proof in the form of receipts issued by these persons who have accepted the payments towards them - AR stated that if the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO, the assessee would adduce evidence to support the claim made by him - HELD THAT:- In the light of the said submission made by the assessee in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT (A) and remand this issue back to file of the AO to decide the issue afresh after granting opportunity to the assessee to bring evidence to support its claim.
Addition of income - assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment made in cash for registration of some land dealing - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) was of the opinion that since the source of expenditure could not be adduced by the assessee, he confirmed the addition. Before us also the assessee could not adduce any evidence to prove the source of cash of Rs. 1,13,058/-. Therefore, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
-
2017 (3) TMI 1960
Levy of entry tax - challenge on the ground that the levy was not in the nature of compensatory tax - entire State can be treated as 'local area' for the purposes of entry tax or not - entry tax can be levied on the goods which are directly imported from other countries and brought in a particular State or not - provision for giving adjustment of other taxes like VAT, incentives etc. paid by the indigenous manufacturers - HELD THAT:- Appropriate course of action would be to permit the Appellants to file fresh petitions by May 31, 2017, raising the aforesaid issues with necessary factual background or any other constitutional/statutory issue which arises for consideration.
All these appeals are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty granted to the Appellants. The interim orders which were passed by this Court and which are continued in these appeals shall continue till May 31, 2017.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1959
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Concealment of income by not filing the return of income - whether ignorance of law cannot be taken as a plea to escape from tax liability? - return filed in response to section 153A notice - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee filed the return of income of the A.Y.2007-08 after the search and seizure action specifically in view of the notice u/s.153A. Therefore, the revenue was of the view that the assessee concealed the particulars of income and levied the penalty.
At the time of hearing the revenue filed the letter dated 03.01.2017 in which it is specifically explained that the assessee did not file the appeal against the quantum before the CIT(A) and before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal available on record. This letter has not been controverted by the representative of the assessee meaning thereby the facts of non furnishing the return u/s.139(1) of the Act was admitted and it is not in dispute that the assessee filed the return of income after service of the notice u/s.153A of the Act.
CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which is not required to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Therefore, we confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1958
Non rejection of books of accounts - whether the book results could be substituted? - Tribunal justification in reversing the categorical finding of FAA that the books have not been rejected u/s 145 and in absence of such rejection, the book results cannot be substituted - tribunal rejecting the books of appellant u/s 145 and restoring the addition on account of alleged excess drayage in the process of manufacturing of mustard oil by crushing of mustered oil seeks
HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the reasoning adopted by the CIT(A), more particularly when the books of account were not rejected, the analogy applied by the CIT(A) is correct and both the issues are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1957
The Supreme Court of India, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Justice R.K. Agrawal, issued an order rejecting applications for hearings in open court. The Court condoned the delay but, after thoroughly reviewing the petitions and related documents, found no merit in the review petitions, leading to their dismissal.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1956
Levy of entry tax - levy was in the nature of compensatory tax or not - entire State can be treated as 'local area' for the purposes of entry tax or not - levy of entry tax on the goods which are directly imported from other countries and brought in a particular State - whether the benefits given to certain categories of manufacturers would amount to discrimination Under Section 304 or not - HELD THAT:- The impugned Act came into force w.e.f. 5th May, 2000, to provide for levy and collection of tax on the entry of goods into the local areas of the State for consumption or use therein. The Act is enacted to provide for levy and collection of tax on the entry into a local area of the State, of a motor vehicle for use or sale, and of other goods for use or consumption therein. The Act seeks to impose entry tax on all goods brought into a "local area". The entire State is divided into local areas. The Act covers not only vehicles bringing goods into the State but also vehicles carrying goods from one local area to another. However, those who pay sales tax to the State are exempt from payment of entry tax. Ultimately, the entry tax only falls on concerns, like Jindal Strips, which, by virtue of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, pay sales tax on purchase of raw-material and sale of finished goods to other States and do not pay sales tax to the State of Haryana. This is the context in which the challenge to the Act Under Article 301 has been made.
Reasons for referral order - HELD THAT:- In Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. etc. v. State of Assam and Ors. [1960 (9) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that taxing laws are not excluded from the operation of Article 301, which means that tax laws can and do amount to restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed to trade under Part-XIII of the Constitution. However, the prohibition of restrictions on free trade is not an absolute one. Statutes restrictive of trade can avoid invalidation if they comply with Article 304(a) or (b) - Reference was made to Nine Judges' Bench, as indicated at the outset of this order.
The appropriate course of action would be to permit the Appellants to file fresh petitions by May 31, 2017, raising the aforesaid issues with necessary factual background or any other constitutional/statutory issue which arises for consideration.
All these appeals/writ petition are, accordingly, disposed of. The interim orders which were passed by this Court and which are continued in these appeals shall continue till May 31, 2017. It will be open to the Appellants to seek interim orders.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1955
Validity of Ext.P6 communication issued to the petitioner under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 - petitioner's contention is that under sub-clause (iv) of Rule 17(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules 2005 (KVAT Rules), a partnership firm alone is referred to, since by virtue of Section 4 of the LLP Act, the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, are made inapplicable - HELD THAT:- It is to be noticed that the petitioner is a partnership firm, though one of limited liability to the partners and there is no reference to the Indian Partnership Act in the specific provision. It is also to be noticed that many legal entities have been referred to in Rule 17 of the KVAT Rules with the nominal heading of “application for registration”. The manner in which each of such legal entity is required to apply for registration has also been detailed in the provision.
The LLP Act came into force in 2008 after the KVAT Act and Rules were framed. It was not in the contemplation of the rule making authority or the legislature of such a legal entity, ie; the limited liability partnership. In such circumstance, the petitioner being a partnership; though of limited liability, would have to comply with all the necessary incidence of an application to be made by a partnership firm as provided under the KVAT Rules. In such circumstance, the petitioner would have to comply with Ext.P6, by way of providing a declaration in form No.2, signed by all the partners with details as shown therein.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1954
Dismissal of tax appeal by the Revenue due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lakhs - monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (C.B.E. & C.) to prefer an appeal before the High Court - HELD THAT:- The appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal on the aforesaid ground alone. Accordingly, present tax appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. However, the question of law, if any, is kept open.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1953
Refund of service tax - it is submitted that the hearing in the present appeal took place on 5.10.2010 whereas the decision was given by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 7.6.2016 after around 6 years hearing - HELD THAT:- This case needs to he remanded back to the original authority with a direction to consider whether the incidence of tax has not been passed to the buyer. The original authority will also consider all the documents which may be produced by the appellant including the C.A's certificate, agreement between the appellant and his buyer and any other documents which the appellant may produce to prove the eligibility of refund. With this the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the original authority to pass a de novo order.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1952
Impleadment of Mr. Jatin Jamandas Mavani, nominee director of the IOTL as 10th Respondent to the Company Petition - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 20.12.2016 stands modified and substituted with liberty to appellant to file additional affidavit in consonance with the observations made above, within 15 days.
The Tribunal in its turn will take into account the additional facts, if it is in consonance with the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, otherwise will ignore the other facts by deleting such paragraphs from the additional affidavit - the appellant are not allowed to raise any plea with regard to Mr. Ramachandran's presence in the Board's Meeting/EGM Meeting on 31.12.2016, except to the extent it has already been pleaded.
The parties are directed to cooperate with the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to dispose of the company petition expeditiously preferably within one month, uninfluenced by any observations earlier made by the Tribunal - appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1951
Exemption u/s 10BA - as argued assessee was not fulfilling the required conditions which was proved during the course of survey proceedings and was evident from the purchases made through form No.17 of sales tax - ITAT allowed exemption - HELD THAT:- The contentions which are raised by the department regarding error being committed by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is not sustainable. The analogy which has been adopted by the tribunal is required to be affirmed and decision of earlier judgment of Supreme Court in Arihant Tiles & Marbles [2009 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and the other judgments are to be followed.
We are of the opinion that issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1950
Identification of surplus Assistant Professors in the Department of Tamil Studies and Research, based on the workload prevailing therein - obtaining report from the Academic Council, faculty and Board of Studies and consequently, appoint those surplus Assistant Professors in other Government Colleges, before taking a final decision to send the teachers on deputation on the ground of surplus staff.
HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to point out that this writ petition is a belated one. The reason is that, a year ago, when the respondent University took a policy decision to depute 369 teaching staff members to other Government colleges on the ground of they being surplus and when the said policy decision was put to challenge before this Court, this Court upheld the policy decision of the respondent University, observing that, the respondent University, by showing compassion, has not decided to terminate their services, but, has rather deputed them to other Government colleges.
Likewise, in the instant case as well, after identifying further surplus staff, if the respondent University takes a further decision to send its surplus staff members to other Government colleges on deputation basis, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, can, in no way be prejudiced to come to this Court seeking a direction, as aforestated, inasmuch as their services are not terminated by which their very likelihood may be affected. In such view of the matter, further action, if any, taken by the respondent University on the ground of it being overstaffed, cannot be interfered with.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1949
LTCG - Exemption u/s 54B - assessee invested the advance money received in specific assets before date of transfer of asset - HELD THAT:- Purchaser has paid substantial amount to the assessee as advance money as against total sale consideration of Rs. 5.64 crores. No purchaser would make such a huge advance without taking the possession of the land. The contention of the assessee, is therefore, correct that assessee has handed over the possession of land to the purchaser sometime in April 2008 otherwise the purchaser would not make the huge advances to the assessee.
It is also proved that when substantial amount was received against the sale of land, it is available to the assessee for making investment in purchases of land. The assessee claimed that he has made investment of Rs. 51,80,000/- in the purchase of another land vide purchased deed dated 9.6.2008. Therefore, authorities below cannot deny deduction claimed u/s 54B.
Since the assessee has invested the advance money in purchase of land before the date of transfer of the land, the amount invested will qualify for exemption u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. The evidence and material on record clearly prove that payment for purchase of land was made out of advance received by the assessee against sale of land, in the year under consideration. The claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54B is thus supported by the Board Circular No. 359 (supra)and the decisions relied upon by the assessee. The authorities below were, therefore, not justified in denying the deduction claimed u/s 54B.
We direct the AO to grant deduction claimed u/s 54B - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1948
Rate of depreciation of server/networking equipment - HELD THAT:- We have noticed that this issue of depreciation of server/networking equipment is covered by the decision of Dinamalar Vs. CIT [2016 (9) TMI 506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. [2012 (10) TMI 472 - ITAT HYDERABAD] held that control panel boards and transformers could be classified under "Instrumentation and monitoring systems" and are entitled to depreciation at 80%.
Depreciation on goodwill - HELD THAT:- CIT(A)'s decision upheld to allow depreciation on goodwill, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] and the Delhi High Court's decision in Triune Energy Systems [2015 (11) TMI 1218 - DELHI HIGH COURT] It was noted that goodwill is an intangible asset and should be accounted for when a purchaser acquires a business for more than the fair market value of its net tangible assets. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, stating that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] does not apply to the powers of the Tribunal to entertain fresh claims.
Disallowance u/s 194J - scope of amended provision - HELD THAT:- Since the issue was decided by the Commissioner on the basis of the judgment pertaining to the period prior to the amendment of the explanation to section 194J, therefore the judgments relied were not applicable and the applicable provision was the amended explanation. In our view the case of the assessee falls within the ambit of explanation to section 194J, therefore the violation committed by the assessee is required to be dealt accordingly. Accordingly, the ground of the Revenue with respect to disallowance u/s 194J is allowed.
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - inclusion of Infosys Ltd. and LGS Global Ltd. - HELD THAT:- In our view the exclusion of Infosys has been dealt by the coordinate bench, the coordinate bench after the detailed examination found that the Infosys is not comparable with the companies referred in the judgement. As the profile of the assessee is similar to that of the assessee referred in the judgement, therefore in our view the Infosys is required to be excluded and has been excluded by the Commissioner at the appellate stage.
Therefore we have no hesitation to direct the exclusion of Infosys in the list of comparable. We found that the order of the ld CIT was in accordance with law and in conformity with the judgement passed by the coordinate bench.
LGS Global Ltd. - As contended that the learned CIT(A) instead of deciding the issue of exclusion of LGS Global Ltd., has remitted back the issue to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. In our view, the learned CIT(A) under the Income-tax Act is required to decide issue at his own level and should not have remitted matter back to the file of the TPO - thus this issue is sent back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh on the basis of material available with him in accordance with law.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1947
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO on scrutiny of the information available in AIR and ITS noticed that the assessee was paid technical service fees which had not been declared by the assessee in her return of income - in the proceedings before the AO u/s 271(1)(c) assessee pointed out that there was a mistake at the time of filing the return of income and there was no intention whatsoever to conceal any particulars of income - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the amount in question was received by the assessee by way of cheque and that the payee had duly deducted tax at source on the payment made to the assessee. Thus the tax due and payable on the income in question has already reached the coffers of the revenue. When the fact that the receipt from M/s. Crisil Ltd was not disclosed in the return of income was confronted to the assessee, she immediately agreed to the addition and also appraised the AO that non disclosure of the said receipt in the return of income was inadvertent and not willful.
This circumstance clearly show that there was neither an attempt to conceal particulars of income by the assessee nor to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof. We therefore accept the plea of the assesse and hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not called for. We therefore cancel the order imposing penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.
........
|
9911796707
