2017 (12) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not upholding the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (the AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in not upholding the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by ignoring ratio dicidendi as upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi). 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and is no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. 3. It is the argument of the Ld. DR that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in ignoring the ratio of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. M/s Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra) and in not considering the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is further argued that there are no bona fides on the part of the assessee in making a false claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act knowing it fully well that STPI is not a competent authority u/s 14 of the Industries Development & Regulation Act (IDAR) Act, as such, penalty imposed by the AR is proper and correct. Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. AR that it is only under the mistaken impression that since the registration was granted by the STPI society to the a....