TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere change of opinion and there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1998 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court) the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the decision of Chellapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. CIT (1974 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) held that if the assessee receives any amounts which are inextricably linked with the process of setting up of its plant and machinery such receipts will go to reduce the cost of its assets and these receipts are of the capital nature and cannot be taxed as income. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2213/Mds/2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the assessment. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in reply to the show cause notice, assessee submitted that assessee has not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars and its claim was based on certain case laws, therefore requested to drop the penalty proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer passed order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty holding that assessee has concealed income by setting off interest against expenditure. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty. 3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mushashi Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. (330 ITR 545) held as under:- In the case where assessee computed the preoperative expenses after deducting interest and showing in balance sheet filed along with return of income and Assessing Officer holding that interest cannot be adjusted against pre-operative expenses does not mean that there was any non-disclosure of material fact, which could warrant levy of penalty. Therefore, there was no concealment on the part of the assessee and in these circumstances penalty could not be imposed. 6. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) opined that case of the assessee is similar to the facts of the case before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
