9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] , no substantial question of law, as proposed, arises in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2022 - DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. Ravi Sawana i/b Mr. Sriram Sridharan for respondent. PC : 1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) against the order dated 15th February 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( ITAT ) for the assessment year 2008-09, by virtue of which the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was dismissed by the CIT(A). (c) The matter was further challenged by the assessee before the ITAT which allowed the quantum appeal by virtue of Order dad 3rd February 2016. The ITAT in the said order, while placing reliance inter alia upon the case of S .A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh [2007] 158 Taxman 74 (SC), came to a conclusion that the money advanced by the assessee, as a holding company to its subsidiaries, was on account of business expediency , as the assessee had signifcant interest in the business of its subsidiaries, which was similar in nature. It was also held that no disallowance had been made in the assessment year 2007-08 or earlier, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the CIT(A) came to be dismissed vide Order dated 28th Mach 2013 the penalty of Rs.2,25,62,040/- was upheld. 7. Finally the assessee fled an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench E , which was allowed by virtue of the order dated 15th February 2017, on the ground that since the quantum appeal of the assessee had been allowed and the order of CIT (Appeals) reversed, the order confrming the penalty levied by the Assessing Offcer did not survive. The Tribunal accordingly deleted the penalty of Rs.2,25,62,040/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Counsel for the appellant urged that since the SLP preferred by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal, dated 3rd February 2016 was pending before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
