9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was levied and has allowed the claim of the Assessee u/s 10B. In view this fact, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA NO. 187/PNJ/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other parties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dt. 28.12.2012 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act by holding as under : In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and following the ratio of decisions discussed above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore from goa and claimed 100% of its business profit from its Codli, Amona and Chitradurga plants involving total claim of ₹ 451,27,84,122/- is utter disregard and violation of Supreme Court decision in its own case, this is a case fit for imposition of penalty higher than the minimum penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The amount of tax on the disallowance of claim of deduction of ₹ 451,27,84,122/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have gone through the penalty order and the submission of the appellant. The A.O levied penalty because in Department s view the assessee was not eligible to claim deduction u/s 10B and it had wrongly made the said claim. The claim was denied mainly on three counts : i) The three EOU units were not engaged in manufacture or production of an article or thing and therefore not entitled for exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we noted that this is a fact that the Tribunal has set aside the disallowance made by the AO in respect of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied and has allowed the claim of the Assessee u/s 10B vide its order in ITA No. 72/PNJ/2012 dt. 8.3.2013. In view this fact, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
