TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated facts and various pronouncements quoted above, we are of the view this is not a case where there is no closure of business of the assessee same has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and consequently the block of the assets continue to exist, there is absolutely no infirmity in assessee’s treatment of reducing the sales consideration in relation to assets of the Daruhera’s unit from the respective block of assets and claiming depreciation on the adjusted block of assets. Hence, there is no case of penalty, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and reject the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. Deferred allowance of 4/5th of legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al decisions. Keeping in view of the detail discussion as above, we are of the view that there is no case of penalty. Hence the minimum penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was rightly cancelled, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and reject the ground no. 3. - I.T.A. Nos. 3504 & 3464/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2017 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member Department by : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Sh. Purushottam Anand, Adv ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, JM These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the Orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi dated 11.02.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,37,65,600/- (to be allowed in equal instalments in four subsequent assessment years); and - Exclusion of miscellaneous income from the claim of tax deduction under section 10A and 10B amounting to ₹ 2,59,765/-. 3.1 Against the aforesaid penalty order, the assessee filed the appael before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide her impugned order dated 11.2.2013 has deleted the minimum penalty of ₹ 2,07,46,650/- imposed by the AO and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 6. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired as per law were made and there is no question of levying any penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroprodcuts P Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. With regard to ground no. 1 relating to Depreciation amounting to ₹ 4,42,22,475/- on the assets of Daruhera unit closed during the year is concerned, we find that the assessee had made adequate disclosure in the audited financial statements, tax audit report filed along with the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had provided the necessary explanations and made due submissions, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is absolutely no infirmity in assessee s treatment of reducing the sales consideration in relation to assets of the Daruhera s unit from the respective block of assets and claiming depreciation on the adjusted block of assets. Keeping in view of the above stated facts and various pronouncements quoted above, we are of the view this is not a case where there is no closure of business of the assessee same has been affirmed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court and consequently the block of the assets continue to exist, there is absolutely no infirmity in assessee s treatment of reducing the sales consideration in relation to assets of the Daruhera s unit from the respective block of assets and claiming depreciation on the adjusted block of assets. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT II vs Liquid Investments and Trading Ltd (ITA 240/2009). 7.2 With regard to ground no. 3 relating to exclusion of miscellaneous income from the claim of tax deduction under section 10A and 10B amounting to ₹ 2,59,765/- is concerned, we find the Assessing Officer while excluding the miscellaneous income from the profit of 10A and 10B units had considered the miscellaneous income of the assessee as a whole instead of the miscellaneous income of the 10A and 10B unit and examining the nature thereof, therefore resulting in an ad-hoc disallowance which cannot be a basis for levy of penalty. The assessee had obtained certificates from a Chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
