2013 (1) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'the Tribunal' for short) dated 21.10.2011 raising following question for our consideration : "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act?" 2. Issue pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for different additions. When such penalty order passed was challenged befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the issue has been sent back to the file of Assessing Officer by the ITAT. The issues relating to disallowance of ₹ 54,71,162/- and ₹ 68.40 crores have also been sent by to the file of Assessing Officer. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is not sustainable. The penalty in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA we find that this ground is squarely covered in favour of the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were sent for reconsideration. With respect to disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, the authorities held that the claim cannot be stated to be a wrong claim. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC), such penalty was deleted. 4. To our mind, the entire issue is based on appreciation of facts. Substant....