TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the CIT(A)-II, Cochin relating to assessment year 2001-02. 2. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty of ₹ 2,15,24,700/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Public Limited Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33,23,018 4 Relatable interest on tax free investments 4,35,45,000 3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) canceled the penalty levied by the AO. Aggrieved with such order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has merely restored the issue to the file of AO for verification. Therefore, in our opinion no penalty on this addition is called for. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty on this additions is in order. 6. So far as the penalty levied on addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- being the Difference in depreciation added back is concerned, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty on this account. 7. So far as the penalty levied on addition of ₹ 33,22,018/- being Lease depreciation and lease equalization reserve is concerned, we find the Tribunal in assessee s own case has discussed the issue for the A.Y. s 1995- 96 to 1997-98 and the appeal filed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
