9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um addition on account of commission for 147.45 Lacs which was contested by assessee before the Tribunal wherein the matter was restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration. However, the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted by CIT(A) which was contested by the revenue in M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (12) TMI 1658 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the same was also restored back keeping in view the fact that quantum additions were also restored back by the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the same and the decision was quite logical one because the penalty appeal was filed by the revenue and not by the assessee since the penalty was already deleted by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the said order, in our opinion, would re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11/12/2018, passed in revenue's appeals, in case of captioned assessee for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11. 2. Drawing our attention to the applications, Ld. Authorized Representative [DR], submitted that the issue involved in AY 2008-09 (ITA No.1409/Mum/2016) was levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which has been restored back to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in view of the fact that quantum addition, against which the penalty was levied, was also restored back by the Tribunal vide ITA No. 1264/Mum/2012 order dated 25/11/2016. The Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that the quantum assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, was already passed by Ld. AO on 31/12/2017 wherein same disallowance has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Tribunal in ITA No.1264/Mum/2012, the quantum order has been passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 on 31/12/2017 wherein same addition has been repeated and fresh penalty proceedings has been initiated. The same is also in order since the earlier penalty order would not survive and the only penalty which survive against the assessee would be pursuant to this order only. 5. The miscellaneous application for AY 2008-09 stand dismissed. 6. So far as application for AY 2010-11 is concerned, we find that the revenue agitated that relief granted by fits appellate authority qua commission expenditure. The same was also restored back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication. The plea of Ld. AR is that rendering of service has not been doubted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
