9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 27.12.2011 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in quashing the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied penalty while calculating thereby mocking the facts by stating perversely that the CIT(A) had decided the issue and this may be called a complete denial of the facts available on the record?" 2. The assessee has received sales tax subsidy during the assessment year in question. The assessee claimed the said amount as a capital receipt but added a note that though the High Court has decided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court but the fact of the matter is that the SLP against the above order stands admitted before there Lordships of Supreme Court. Otherwise also the fact that assessee company had availed sales tax subsidy of Rs.7,84,56,517/- during the year under consideration has been given in the note to the computation to the total income whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which has been set aside by the Tribunal holding that once the penalty itself has been set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the provisions of Section 263 of the Act could not be invoked by the Revenue. 4. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax has exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in utter violation of not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
