9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T: NONE JUDGMENT S.SUJATHA J. , This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11 raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by holding that imposition of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit for set-off of loss carried forward. The Assessing authority during the assessment proceedings has noticed that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 10,23,53,309/- as against admissible depreciation of Rs. 1,44,74,986/-. Thus, the Assessing Authority disallowed a sum of Rs. 30,86,504/- and Rs. 4,86,946/- being payment made to harvesters/transporters and vehicle hire charges and legal fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther appeal filed by the Revenue before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the assessee had also filed cross-objection challenging the notice issued by the Revenue under Section 274 of the Act as defective. The ITAT placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 held that imposing of penalty under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such particulars, the Tribunal set-aside the order of the penalty levied on the Assessee. In the circumstances, the questions of law being answered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal to answer the questions of law raised by the appellant-Revenue. Hence, the appeal stands d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
