2010 (9) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Karunakara Rao, AM This appeal by the Assessee is filed against the order of the CIT(A)- III, Pune dt. 30.3.2009 for the A.Y. 2005-06. The Grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have gravely erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 8,18,920/- u/s 271(1)(c), of Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... permitted period of time, the assessment was completed without recognizing the impugned revised return and considering the original return of income. The claim of the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was obviously denied based on the details furnished by the assessee ie original and the invalid revised return. The AO initiated and levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ause the assessee claimed deduction which has not been accepted by the by the revenue, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted." On the other hand, Ld DR for the revenue relied heavily on the orders of the revenue. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of the revenue and the case laws relied on by the parties. In the instant case, we find that there is a claim made in the original ....