TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moted by the AP Housing Board and M/s IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd. for the purpose of developing Integrated Townships and other allied construction and development works. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs. 15,95,32,740/-. Subsequently revised return was filed on 22/08/2008 declaring income of Rs. 56,17,006/- before set off of brought forward losses and Nil income after set off of the losses. During the scrutiny assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the TPO for determining the Arm's Length Price of the international transaction. In pursuance to the order passed by the TPO a draft assessment order has passed. The assessee objected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The assessee relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) submitted that there must be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejecting the contentions of the assessee passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 20,86,60,998/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee being aggrieved of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 5. In course of the appellate proceedings, the AR submitted that the appeal before the ITAT against the assessment order in the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot registered in favour of the assessee by APHB. The APHB is always the owner of the impugned land. There is no question of retransferring of the said land to APHB when the land itself is not registered in favour of the assessee and the cost of the land attributable to the flats handed over to APHB cannot be claimed as deduction in the hands of the assessee. This ground is rejected." 7. It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the first appellate authority that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee conceals its income or furnishes inaccurate particulars. It was submitted that when compensation is paid in accordance with the agreement, which is part of the record before the Assessing Officer and that none of the inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is directed to be deleted with regard to the claim of land cost of Rs. 1,92,19,200/-." 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: "i) The learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case. ii) The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and should not have equated the case with a case of wrong claim of deduction. iii) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is neither a case of claiming a deduction (as defined under Chapter VIA) nor a case of claiming exemption (as defined und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court is received by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty may be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, the Appellate Tribunal ....