9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – In favor of assessee - ITA No.5143/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2012 - R S Syal, Vivek Varma, JJ. For Appellant: Shri Sunil M Lala For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar ORDER Per: R S Syal: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 28-01-2011 upholding penalty of Rs.33,75,372/- imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d copies of certain orders passed by the Tribunal including the case of J.P. Morgan Services India P. Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-718-ITAT-MUM and Living Stones Jewellery P. Ltd. vs. DCIT - 2009-TIOL-526-ITAT-MUM in which the assessee was granted deduction u/s.10A on the interest income earned on deposits. Even though the assessee remained unsuccessful before the Tribunal on the question of inclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not attract penalty under this section. When the assessee furnished all the particulars in the return, which were not found to be inaccurate, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that no penalty could have been imposed in this regard. The facts of the instant cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR has made a categorical statement at the Bar that never in the past the AO has imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of non-granting of deduction u/s. 10A/10B on interest income. This submission has remained uncontroverted by the ld. DR. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty. We, therefore, ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
