9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch cases cannot survive. We are of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In such a situation, relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No. 3537/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2021 - Anil Chaturvedi , Member ( A ) And Kuldip Singh , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Gaurav Jain and Manisha Sharma , Advs. For the Respondents : Prakash Dubey , Sr. D. R. ORDER Per Anil Chaturvedi , AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.03.2016 of the Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of ₹ 1,32,29,000/- on disallowance of deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble IT AT in the preceding years as well as the year under consideration? 2. Whether on the facts the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of ₹ 11,38,000/- on disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 33.47 lacs u/s. 32(1)(iia) which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to deduct tax at source u/s. 1941 and 1940 of the Act? 7. Whether on the facts the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of ₹ 8,000/- on disallowance of generator hire charges, amounting to ₹ 23,000/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) for alleged failure to deduct tax source u/s. 1941? 8. Whether on the facts the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of ₹ 2,85,000/- on disallowance of deduction of ₹ 7.60 lacs on account of non deduction of TDS on provision made for freight inwards incurred on purchases? 9. Whether on the facts the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of ₹ 12,000/- on disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore it does not attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 431 ITR 118, wherein Hon'ble High Court has observed that if the quantum order has been challenged before the High Court and High Court has framed substantial question of law in the appeal then it would show that the alleged concealment is not final and the issue is disputable and the penalty levied by the AO in such case cannot survive. He therefore submitted that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty imposed by AO. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
