TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Choudhary, CIT DR ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon dated 17 .02.2017. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the revenue: "1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief to the assessee and deleted the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,10 ,09 ,192/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowance of the provision for fine and penalty debited by the assessee to P&L A/c and treating the same as contingent liability. * Reimbursement of mobile sets given to employees was considered as capital expenditure which was treated as revenue expenditure by the assessee. * One time transaction charge paid to IBM on signing of agreement treated as revenue expenditure by the assessee has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... glaring discrepancy between initiation of the penalty and levy of penalty. This is a jurisdictional issue arising out of the penalty order before us. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the judgment of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) and argued that the Hon'ble High Court held that where notice did not show the nature of default, it was a question of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find....