TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and in not tenable on facts and in law. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 2. The facts in brief are that assessment in this case was completed on 24.12.2010 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) at the total income of Rs. 31,44,68,910/- as against the returned income of Rs. 29,64,74,120/-. The penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the following additions made in the assessment order:- i) Addition on account of disallowance of u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D Rs. 87,75,445/- ii) Addition on account of disallowance Rs. 67,31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering the written submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, the AO observed that the reply filed by the assessee's counsel is not acceptable as it is devoid of merit and held that assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and imposed the penalty of Rs. 35,10,826/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his penalty order dated 30.10.2012. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 30.9.2013 has deleted the penalty in dispute and allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Godrej Boyce Ltd. (IRT) (BHC) and Delhi High Court order in case of MAXOPP Investment Ltd. (2011-TIO -753-HC-DEL-IT). It is the period of confusion whether, the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income will be disallowed or not. After the Delhi High Court's order, the matter is settled now. Considering these facts and as appellant had now. Considering these facts and as appellant had paid taxes on 14-A disallowance. The second addition is on account of DDA misuse charges of Rs. 67,31,919/- which was held by Hon'ble ITAT as the penalty paid for infraction of law cannot be called commercial losses incurred by the assessee ad it is not a normal incident of the business. The appellant company had constructed the basement are....