Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)
Agencies (India) Corporation, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 March, 2015 cites

First Income-Tax Officer vs South India Corporation (A) Ltd., ... on 25 July, 1995

4. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that when the partial disallowance on account of interest has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) then in that case proportionate penalty should be confirmed. Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that Assessee had furnished the necessary explanation and had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. He further submitted that merely because the claim of assessee has not been accepted that by itself would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). He thus supported the order of CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Food Corporation Of India. (Also Ito V. ... on 16 December, 1992

5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. In the present case disallowance of interest of Rs. 16,04,717/- was made by AO which was restricted to Rs. 8,73,700/- by CIT(A). On the addition confirmed by CIT(A), penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied by I.T.A No. 2459/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 3 ITO vs. Agencies (India) Corporation AO. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) had noted that there is no finding of the AO about the loan funds raised being used for non-business purposes and has further noted that AO had not disallowed the interest expenses by establishing nexus with the loan raised to the advances given but made the disallowances on pure estimate basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1