Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 669 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation on leased asset - HELD THAT:- This issue has already been set aside by the coordinate bench to the file of Ld. AO for re-examination. Further, the penalty on identical issue has been deleted by Tribunal for AY 1995- 96,[2018 (8) TMI 1981 - ITAT MUMBAI]wherein it was held that since the addition on the basis of which the penalty was levied does not survive, the penalty would not be sustainable.Respectfully following the same, we confirm the deletion of penalty, albeit on a different ground. Penalty on disallowance of deduction u/s 80M - We find that penalty on identical issue has been deleted by the Tribunal in the case of ICICI Limited [2017 (4) TMI 1509 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Respectfully following the same, we confirm the deletion of penalty. This ground stand dismissed. Disallowance of expenditure for increase in share capital - We find that penalty on identical issue has been deleted by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 1993-94 wherein it was held that the issue was debatable one and the same would not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Respectfully following the same, we confirm the stand of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty on this issue. Disallowance of claim u/s 35D - We find that the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by AO in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Agro Cargo Transport Ltd. V/s CIT [1997 (8) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. We find that this issue was debatable one and the mere rejection of assessee’s claim would not necessarily tantamount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as held in CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] The assessee made a bona-fide claim which was not accepted by the revenue. However, same would not be good ground for levy of penalty unless it was demonstrated that there was any concealment of income / furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|