2009 (11) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared rental income under the head Income from Business, which was changed to Income from House Property by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also confirmed the said decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judicial decisions and in particularly referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Roborant Investments (P) Limited, as reported in (2006) 7 SOT 181, wherein on identical facts, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been cancelled. 4. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the submissions made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X