9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 to the extent income available i.e. ₹ 5,46,720/-. The AO passed the penalty order on 30.07.2013. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order on 18.09.2017. Thereafter, the AO passed a rectification order u/s 154 on 06.11.2017 allowing the above set off of ₹ 5,46,720/-. Therefore, the penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not survive.- decided in favour of assessee - ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 on 17.09.2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 47,48,560/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 29.01.2013 determining the total income at ₹ 56,06,350/-. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings in respect of disallowance of long term capital loss claimed intra-head against short term capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above amount of ₹ 5,46,720/-. Accordingly, he levied a minimum penalty of ₹ 1,68,936/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with the following observations: The appellant, in its submission, has also relied upon the decisions in the cases of Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot sufficient for imposition of penalty. This issue has been dealt in here in above and reliance is placed on the decision of CIT v. HCIL Kalindee ARSSPL (supra). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the appellant are not found to be acceptable and are accordingly rejected and the penalty so imposed by the AO is ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
