TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., AR. ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dated 27.12.2016 passed for the Asstt. Year 2009-10, by which the ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty of Rs. 26,39,116/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On receipt of notice on Revenue's appeal, assessee has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 8,05,292/- and LTCG of Rs. 3,03,33,731/- and confirmed rest of disallowance. Both the Revenue and assessee went in appeal before the ITAT against respective deletion/confirmation of addition made by the ld. CIT(A). In the meanwhile, qua confirmation of addition on account of future and option loss of Rs. 77,64,387/- the ld. AO initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that against quantum addition deleted/confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), both the Revenue and assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal ITA No. 2138/Ahd/2012 dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition of STCG of Rs. 8,05,292/- and the addition on account of LTCG ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taxes, if any, payable him, which shall not be less than , but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In other words, the quantification of the penalty is depended upon the addition made to the income of the assessee. Penalty in the present case was imposed qua disallowance in ....