TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed the appeal on the following grounds claiming to be substantial questions of law : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 42,48,656/levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the facts that the assessee had failed to offer an explanation in respect of certain disallowance made by the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een furnished by the assessee to reduce the incidence of tax? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the fact that the quantum has been sustained by the highest fact finding authority, namely the Tribunal would go to indicate that the respondent company has furnished inaccurate particulars and is therefore liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c)? (e) Whether on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in the instant case? 3. Mr. Pinto, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the CIT(A) so also the Tribunal were not right in passing the impugned order, thereby allowing the contentions of the assessee and setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The wrong claim was made by the assessee. As the wrong claim was ....