9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee has lost in the Quantum proceedings - Following CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - the First Appellate Authority was right in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271 (1)(c) for the reason that there is neither furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income - The assessee has made an honest claim and all the facts relating to the claim were on record. Levy of penalty us. 271 (1)(c) - Disallowance on depreciation – Held that:- Following M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd. (Formerly Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd.) Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income tax[2010 (3) TMI 996 - ITAT DELHI] - the assessee could possibly claim the whole of the expenditure as revenue expenditure in assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,94,80,023/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.8,06,020/- on assets(Power Lines) not owned by the company and disallowance of deduction of Rs.37,21,99,330/- claimed Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) u/s. 115JB of the act. 2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in law and on facts. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. For AY 2006-07: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,83,92,501/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fits u/s 115 JB, by adeopting the profits computed in accordance with the provisions of Part I and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. The AO disagreed with the same and recomputed the book profits u/s 115JB by restricting the deduction u/s 80 HHC by computing the same with reference to profits computed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty was levied on this issue. 7. This issue i.e. whether deduction u/s 80HHC was to be computed with reference to profits computed as per Companies Act or profits computed as per Income Tax Act, for the purpose of arriving at book profits u/s 115 JB, was a subject matter of debate and due to conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal, a Special Bench of the ITAT was constituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal while disposing of the appeal for the AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 in ITA No. 293 and 294/DEL/2010 vide order dated 26/03/2010 at para 3.2 observed as follows:- "3.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The question whether an expenditure is of capital nature or revenue nature is always a mixed question of fact and law. The assessee had capitalized the expenditure of Rs. 181.30 lakh in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000. It was represented before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the expenditure could have been claimed as revenue expenditure in the year of its incurring in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd., (1985) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
