9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l grounds raised by the Ld. AR stands rejected. It is to be noted that the assessee claimed 80IB deduction towards certain items and the Tribunal uphold the major claim of the assessee which proves the point that the assessee made a claim which was bona-fide and tenable in law. Therefore, the assessee made a legally valid claim, which was accepted to a major extent. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee do not deserves to be saddled with the impugned penalty particularly when it derived benefit only to the extent of 30%, being deduction u/s 80-IB. Therefore, by deleting the same, we allow the assessee’s appeal. - I.T.A. No. 2552/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Shri Manoj K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AO for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income vide penalty order dated 23/03/2011 after issuance of mandatory notice u/s 274. 3. In the meantime, the quantum proceedings were carried up to the level of ITAT vide ITA No. 1661/Mum/2010 order dated 23/09/2011 with partial success wherein the assessee was found eligible to claim 80-IB against ₹ 75,03,543/- out of aggregate amount of ₹ 1,07,05,561/- leaving a balance of ₹ 32,02,018/- for which the assessee was found not eligible to claim 80-IB deduction. 4. The assessee contested AO s penalty order before Ld. CIT(A) with partial success vide impugned order where the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the Tribunal s quantum order restricte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 274. Further, the defect, if any, found in the standard printed proforma of notice u/s 274, stood cured by the provisions of Section 292B and do not invalidate the penalty proceedings. This point is further fortified by the fact that the assessee actively contested the penalty proceedings without an iota of doubt in his mind as to the ground for which he was being penalized. Therefore, the legal grounds raised by the Ld. AR stands rejected. 7. The Ld. AR, on merits, contended that the assessee earned other income which consisted of certain miscellaneous income earned by the assessee during the course of business and the same were inextricably linked with the eligible business carried on by the assessee and therefore, the Tribunal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
