9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated June 29, 2012, the Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether, the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty of Rs.60,38,310/-levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ? (ii) Whether the ITAT has erred in cancelling penalty in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the material on record. 3. The only question that has been raised in this Tax Appeal is deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), both by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, under two different heads being the commission payment and the expenditure towards reimbursement of the market expenses to its holding company, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mercury Enterprises and ERP Software expenses incurred on ERP software, the assessee has filed along with the return of income audit report and other relevant statements in support of such claims. During the course of assessment proceedings also, the assessee further submitted all the information and explanations as required by the A.O. from time to time to substantiate the claim for such deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not leviable and ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty imposed by the AO." 6. On having heard both the sides and having considered the orders of all the three authorities, we could not find anything to entertain this Tax Appeal as nothing is brought on record to indicate that there is any concealment on the part of the assessee. Certain additions have been made rejecting certain claims in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
