9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference between the amount paid in advance as the net present value of the actual sales tax liability and the actual liability, based on the fact that the Tribunal had deleted the quantum - Question not to be entertained Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) - claim under Section 80M disallowed - Held that:- Tribunal was justified deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271 (1)(c) on the amount being the difference between the amount paid in advance as the net present value of the actual sales tax liability and the actual liability, based on the fact that the Tribunal had deleted the quantum but which decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal has not been accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 2011 of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the revenue had preferred an appeal being Appeal No.909 of 2012 to this Court. By the order dated 5th December, 2014 (Income Tax Appeal No.450 of 2013. i.e. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Sulzer India Ltd. alongwith Income Tax Appeal No.909 of 2012) the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. Therefore no fault can be found with the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings. In order dated 7th September, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saumya Finance and Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 300 ITR Page 422 was followed while allowing the claim for deduction under Section 80M of the Act. (b) It is pointed out to us by the revenue that its appeal against the order dated 7th September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
