TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos.225 and 232 of 2010, as both the appeals raised common question of leviability of penalty when the assessee had put forward the claim which was found not acceptable. In I.T.A. No.225 of 2010, the Revenue has claimed following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (317) ITR 218), whereby the non-allowability of 8-0IB deduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?" iii) "Whether the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k was not income derived from industrial undertaking, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods India [1999] 237 ITR 579. Penalty was also levied. The CIT(A) upheld the view of the Assessing Officer but the Tribunal deleted the penalty with the following observations:- ".......Thus, prima facie, it indicates that this issue was a debatable one. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana ....