2009 (10) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of income In this case Haryana High Court held that, . Making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.5. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. – Decision in favor of assessee – against the revenue - 19 of 2007(O and M). - - - Dated:- 12-10-2009 - ADARSH .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... curate particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars and making wrong claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii)? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty in respect of wrong claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and wrong claim of depreciation on guest house when the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... teel Ltd. v State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26. There was no concealment or deliberate withholding of information or furnishing of incorrect particulars. 3. This appeal was deferred in view of pendency of quantum appeal filed by the assessee being I. T. A. No. 165 of 2005 (Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, Spl. Range, Karnal), which has been allowed by a separate order passed today .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X