9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made on aforesaid two sums of ₹ 10 Crores and ₹ 7 Crores. We hold that once the quantum is deleted, the concealment penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) does not survive. Accordingly, grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed. Addition towards deemed rental income - assessee was gifted a Villa in Dubai by Nakheel PJSE and possession was received by the assessee in 2008 - AO estimated annual letting value of Villa and thereafter, allowed deduction u/s. 24(a) and assessed the remaining sum as deemed rental income under the head "income from house property" - HELD THAT:- In assessee's own case for the A.Y.2010-11 [2018 (6) TMI 147 - ITAT MUMBAI] had deleted the penalty on the very same issue on the ground that the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f expenditure of professional fees and ₹ 7 Crores towards income for the presence of the assessee as brand ambassador are concerned, we find that this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the A.Y.2009-10 reported in 164 ITD 18 had deleted the quantum addition made thereon. 4. The Ld. DR before us fairly agreed that the quantum addition has been indeed deleted by this Tribunal on the addition made on aforesaid two sums of ₹ 10 Crores and ₹ 7 Crores. In view of this, we hold that once the quantum is deleted, the concealment penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Accordingly, grounds No.1 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 5. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is with regard to deletion of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the A.Y.2010-11 reported in 194 TTJ 777 dated 22/05/2010 had deleted the penalty on the very same issue on the ground that the revenue had placed reliance on Notification Nos. 90 91 of 2008 dated 28/08/2008 and whether such notification would supersede over the DTAA, was a debatable issue and that the very same issue have travelled up to the level of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case wherein the scope and gamut of the term may be taxed in such other state was subjected to heavy deliberations and debate. Since, the issue per se was debatable, this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the A.Y.2010-11 in the case referred to supra held that no concealm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
