9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, the appellant Department has challenged the order dated 30/05/2008 passed by the ITAT in ITA NO.2186/Ahd/2004, whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the CIT (A). 2. The short facts of the case are that AO has held that as per the provisions of Section 115JA, the assessees were allowed deduction out of the book profit, the amount of loss or the amount of depreciation which would be required to be set off against the profit of the relevant previous year, if the provisions of clause (b) of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956, were applicable. The AO found that the assessee had grossly misinterpreted the provisions of section 115JA and reworked the book profit at ₹ 49,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the none of the authorities below have committed any error. 6. The CIT (A) in its order has held in paragraph Nos.2.8 and 2.9 which reads as under: 2.8 I also find that regarding this subject there had been numerous case laws both in favour and against Department. In the case of Surana Steel itself, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had given a decision in line with the appellant's stand, and which was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court. The plethora of decisions mentioned which have been affirmed or reversed clearly shows that the matter was the subject of litigation in various courts and therefore, when two opinions are possible, it is questionable whether the point can be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here were no inaccurate particulars nor any false explanation which had been given. The penal levied is therefore deleted. 7. The aforesaid view of the CIT (A) came to be confirmed by the Tribunal and in paragraph No.8 the Tribunal has observed thus: 8. We have heard both the parties and considered rival submission. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is self evident that the issue in question was highly debatable one to various judicial forums giving different interpretations. Assessee having supplied all the primary facts cannot be held to have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, we see no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and, hence, no interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
