9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal, it is possible to sustain the judgment. The Tribunal noted that the addition of ₹ 28.62 crores made by the CIT(A) was on account of reworking of the estimated project cost based on actual cost incurred upto 31.03.2013. The Tribunal noted that against the cost of estimated cost ₹ 1628.02 crores, the CIT(A) adopted a sum of ₹ 1425.19 crores as the actual expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Appeal No. 1344 Of 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - Akil Kureshi And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Hiten Chande I/b PDS Legal for the respondent P.C. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad made certain additions and thereby enhanced the taxable income of the assessee and also initiated penalty proceedings. Ultimately, the penalty that was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act came to be deleted by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment. The Tribunal pressed in service several grounds for deleting the penalty. However, it is not necessary to examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accounting, this was not a case of concealment of income leading to penalty. The Tribunal noted that the addition of ₹ 28.62 crores had the genesis in the estimation on one side and preponement of the expenditure on the other, based on change of method of accounting. Thus, in clear terms the Tribunal found that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor concealing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
