9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd (2005 (2) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT). The facts show that the addition of the rental income itself was set aside in the appeal by the Tribunal. When the addition was set aside, there was no question of imposition of penalty and the ITAT have rightly set aside the order, in which no error is found. Thus the Tribunal was justified in law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal have erred in setting it aside. It is submitted that the question deserves to be answered in favour of the revenue. Shri L.L.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside penalty levied by the assessing officer on the ground that the addition made by the assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the CIT(A), but the respondent remained unsuccessful against which an appeal was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed, the addition was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the assessing officer. The assessing officer had re-assessed the income of the respondent and found that the rental income was in accordance with law, the income was shown correctly an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question has been referred for the opinion of this Court. So far as rental income which was initially held to be sham and was added in the income of the respondent, is concerned, this question has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd reported in (2006) 283 ITR 162 (MP), but in the present case, the question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
