9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not lead to tax evasion. Respectfully following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., (supra), which has been approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court based upon which a Circular also has been issued by CBDT, we do not find any case to interfere with. - decided against revenue. - ITA No. 3358/Del/2016, Cross Objection No.285/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2018 - Shri N.K.Saini, Vice President And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sachin Jolly, Adv. and Shri Arush Bhatia, Adv. For the Department : Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER BENCH Present cross appeals have been filed by revenue as well as assessee against order dated 08/03/16 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-16, Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the ground that the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty on tax sought to be evaded in respect disallowances/ additions made under computation of income under normal provisions of the Act as well computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act, when the assesee is liable to pay tax under provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Ground No. 2 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the ground that the Ld.AO has erred in levying penalty in respect of disallowance of prior period expenses of ₹ 19,99,682 by holding that the said ground has become infructuous. Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of assessee was reduced to ₹ 53,56,53,328/-, as a result of enhanced claim of unabsorbed depreciation available to assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the disallowances/adjustments made in the assessment order, appeal was filed before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 08/08/13 granted partial relief to assessee and most of the disallowances/adjustments were restored back to Ld. AO/DRP. Pursuant to the passing of the order by this Tribunal, Ld. AO issued notice under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act on 26/06/14 show causing assessee as to why penalty should not be levied on the following disallowances/additions which were confirmed by this Tribunal: disallowance of prior period expenses amounting to ₹ 19,99,682/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Counsel also submitted that CBDT vide Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31/12/15 has directed revenue not to file any appeals on the issue decided by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd ., (supra). 5.2. Ld.Sr.DR, though supported the order passed by Ld.AO, could not controvert the aforestated judicial proceedings relied upon by Ld.Counsel. 6. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. In our considered view ratio laid down by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd ., (supra), is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Admittedly in the present case penalty has been levied on an amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
