TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27/05/2015 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) amounting to Rs. 1,63,71,320/- without appreciating that the assessee has tax liability under section 115JB, however, it has offered tax under normal provisions of the Act and, therefore, had furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant had failed to compute tax u/s.115JB. Later CIT revised the assessment u/s.263 and A.O. had levied tax u/s. 115J3 which appellant had paid. However, A.O. had levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for not paying the tax u/s. 115JB on the ground that appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income. Here the issue to be considered is whether the penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) if the income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at all." The SLP filed against the order was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court As reported in 194 Taxman 387. On perusal of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders it is clear that penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) if the income is computed u/s. 115JB. Following the above decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders, penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) is cancell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid tax. Later on the learned Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 2.3 On appeal before the learned CIT(A) the written submission of the assessee were considered in which broadly the decision in Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (supra) was considered. The penalty was deleted. The Revenue is aggrie....