9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax. v. Dharamshi B. Shah [2014 (7) TMI 98 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be deleted on sole ground that assessee’s appeal in respect of addition on basis of which penalty was levied had been admitted by High Court. In the instant case, the AO has held that the assessee didn’t take into account the relevant provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department. 2. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial question of law. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in cancelling the penalty of ₹ 12809428/- imposed by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l question of law, then no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The ld CIT(A) has also stated that order of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. DBITA No. 53/2011 dated 9.12.2010 has been placed on record wherein the Hon ble High Court has admitted the substantial question of law in respect of disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee. Further, our referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was levied had been admitted by High Court. In the instant case, the AO has held that the assessee didn t take into account the relevant provisions of the Act while working out the depreciation. The ld CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee had disclosed all material facts pertaining to the claim of depreciation admissible under section 32 of the Act. It is thus a case where ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
