Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1036 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deducting the cost of fixed assets by the amount of capital subsidy received from the Govt - disallowed the excess depreciation - Held that:- The only lapse on the part of the assessee unearthed by the AO in the assessment proceedings was that instead of deducting the cost of fixed assets by the amount of capital subsidy received from the Govt., the assessee had shown it as part of reserves in the balance sheet and for this lapse, the AO had already disallowed the excess depreciation claimed. These facts, however, nowhere go to suggest that the assessee had furnished the inaccurate particulars to attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Had the assessee not declared the capital subsidy received and claimed the depreciation on full value of capital assets, the matter would have been different. However, once all the information were given in the return of income accompanied by relevant books maintained by assessee, in our considered opinion, simple disallowance of depreciation will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as held in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. [2001 (8) TMI 79 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] and other several decisions relied by the assessee before us including CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT). - Decided in favour of assessee.
|