9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. When all the details are before the Revenue authorities and the claim is not accepted, this fact ipso facto cannot lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - This view is duly expounded in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.[ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - In our considered opinion, assessee's claim as aforesaid cannot be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her erred by not deleting the whole of the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to penalty are that assessee's claim of short term capital gain was treated as business income. Further disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was made as AO was not satisfied with the disallowance done by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer and sustained the disallowance of Rs. 5,22,036/-. I am also of the view that the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act were required to be invoked against the exempt income. However, I agree with the Appellant that the Assessing Officer's calculation of tax sought to be evaded is not correct, as the Assessee had already paid tax of Rs. 2,12,715/- @ 15.45% on the short term capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e observations, the Appellant's appeal is partly allowed. The penalty imposed on the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80G needs no interference as the Appellant has accepted the mistake. 5. Against the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before us. We have heard ld. DR of the Revenue and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
