TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Hospital Penalty Appeal Upheld for Incorrect Depreciation Claim</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved the appellant ... - Issues involved: Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for claiming excess depreciation on hospital equipment.Summary:Issue 1: Assessment of excess depreciation claimedThe appellant, a hospital, claimed depreciation at 40% on all equipment, which was found excessive by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.Details:- The Assessing Officer disallowed &8377; 6,92,74,634 as excess depreciation claimed by the appellant.- Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that it was a wrong claim of deduction, not concealment of income.- The Revenue appealed, arguing that the appellant's intentions were not bona fide.Issue 2: Interpretation of depreciation ratesThe dispute arose from the interpretation of depreciation rates for hospital equipment, specifically regarding the classification of 'life saving devices' for higher depreciation.Details:- The appellant treated all equipment as 'life saving devices' for claiming 40% depreciation.- Assessing Officer bifurcated equipment into 'life saving devices' and normal equipment for depreciation calculation.- Tribunal found no concealment or inaccurate particulars in the appellant's actions.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The judgment emphasized that the disallowance of depreciation was a normal part of scrutiny assessment and did not indicate concealment of income.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
