TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - the First Appellate Authority was right in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271 (1)(c) for the reason that there is neither furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income - The assessee has made an honest claim and all the facts relating to the claim were on record. Levy of penalty us. 271 (1)(c) - Disallowance on depreciation – Held that:- Following M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd. (Formerly Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd.) Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income tax[2010 (3) TMI 996 - ITAT DELHI] - the assessee could possibly claim the whole of the expenditure as revenue expenditure in assessment year 1999-2000 and the result would have been that the deductions now claimed over a number of year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,94,80,023/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.8,06,020/- on assets(Power Lines) not owned by the company and disallowance of deduction of Rs.37,21,99,330/- claimed Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) u/s. 115JB of the act. 2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in law and on facts. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. For AY 2006-07: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,83,92,501/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 JB, by adeopting the profits computed in accordance with the provisions of Part I and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. The AO disagreed with the same and recomputed the book profits u/s 115JB by restricting the deduction u/s 80 HHC by computing the same with reference to profits computed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty was levied on this issue. 7. This issue i.e. whether deduction u/s 80HHC was to be computed with reference to profits computed as per Companies Act or profits computed as per Income Tax Act, for the purpose of arriving at book profits u/s 115 JB, was a subject matter of debate and due to conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal, a Special Bench of the ITAT was constituted. The Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal while disposing of the appeal for the AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 in ITA No. 293 and 294/DEL/2010 vide order dated 26/03/2010 at para 3.2 observed as follows:- 3.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The question whether an expenditure is of capital nature or revenue nature is always a mixed question of fact and law. The assessee had capitalized the expenditure of Rs. 181.30 lakh in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000. It was represented before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the expenditure could have been claimed as revenue expenditure in the year of its incurring in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd., (1985) 151 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
