9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant assessment year under consideration, has framed substantial question of law. It thus becomes apparent that addition is debatable. We draw support in respect of aforestated view from order dated passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Liquid Investment and Trading Co., (2010 (10) TMI 1021 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). We are, therefore, inclined to delete the penalty. - Decided against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under 2. Assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing and assembly of multi-utility vehicles. Ld.AO during assessment proceedings observed that assessee claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) on fixed assets under the head plant and machinery amounting to ₹ 27,12,71,521/-. In the assessment order Ld.AO did not allow claim of additional depreciation amounting to & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Investments Ltd in ITA No. 240/2009 vide order dated 05/10/10. 6. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT (A), revenue is in appeal before us now. 7. Ld.Counsel at the outset submitted that Hon ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 598/2014 admitted question of law in respect of addition, on which penalty has been confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). He brought to our notice question of law that has been framed by Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 10.1 It is a case where penalty is levied, on a issue, in respect of which Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case for relevant assessment year under consideration, has framed substantial question of law. It thus becomes apparent that addition is debatable. 11. We draw support in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
