TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, if yes than what should be amount of penalty imposable upon the assessee. 3. With the assistance of Ld.Representative we have gone through the record carefully, it emerges out from the record that assessee has filed its return of income on 29/11/2011, declaring total income of Rs. 2,54,05,015/- .Assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C on 21/03/2013. The Ld.AO has determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 19,67,00,320/- after making following disallowances/additions. (a) Transfer Pricing Addition Rs. 14,94,92,409/- (b) Prior Period Income Rs. 2,60,695/- (c) Depreciation on Electrical Installation Rs. 8,502/- (d) Foreign exchange difference loss Rs. 11,27,589 (e) Disallowa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....During the course of hearing ld.Counsel for the assessee carved out the details of different additions on which penalty has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). Such additions read as under: Addition on which penalty is levied Amount of addition TP addition Rs.34,86,035/- Prior period income Rs.2,60,696/- Depreciation on electric installation Rs.8,502/- Disallowance u/s.14A Rs.1,21,423/- Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) Rs.44,58,072/- Disallowance u/s.10B Rs.44,90,967 8. As far as appeal of the assessee is concern,he contended that an additions on account of Foreign exchange fluctuation loss claimed by the assessee was made by the AO. The issue with regard to this addition has been set aside by the Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to have been disallowed. Hence, he made addition of Rs. 1,30,344/- (i.e 13,36,441 - Rs. 12.06,097/-). AO made total addition of Rs. 1,30,352/- being PPI. Accordingly, AO made total addition of Rs. 2,60,696/- (i.e Rs. 1,30,344 + Rs. 1,30,352/). In quantum appeal,Hon'ble ITAT held that PPI is to be set-off against PPE and only ''net differential sum'' is to be brought to tax. Accordingly, Net Prior period expenses have been allowed as deduction (para 22-25 @ 25, pgs. 28-30 of the order). Hence penalty deserves to be deleted. Penalty on ''Depreciation on Electric Installation -Rs.8,502/-'' Assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% of ''Electric installation''. However, AO applied depreciation rate @ 10% and made addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) - Rs. 44,58,072/- Hon'ble the ITAT has deleted such disallowance of Rs. 44,58,072/- amade u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act (para 48-53 @ 52-53, pgs 39-41 of the order). Hence, penalty on the same deserves to be deleted. Penalty on ''Disallowance u/s.10B - Rs. 44,90,967/-'' Hon'ble the ITAT has deleted such disallowance made u/s. 10B of the Act (Para 61-63 @ 63 pgs.47-53 of the order). Hence penalty on the same deserves to be deleted. 11. With regard to assessee appeal, such submission read as under: AO levied penalty on addition of Rs. 11,u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act,589/- w.r.t. disallowance on account of ''foreign exchange fluctuation loss'' of Rs. 11,u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act,589/- and the same came to be con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll for visiting the assessee with penalty. The assessee has disclosed basic facts fully and truly.It is a difference of opinion between AO and assessee about the admissibility depreciation at particular rate. 15. As far as prior period income is concern the Ld.AO took the prior period income without giving set off prior period expenditure. The ITAT in the quantum proceedings held that prior period income is to be set off against prior period expenditure. We have dealt with number of A.Ys and found that in certain A.Y the net balance was positive income whereas in other assessment year it was negative. Thus, on this issue it could be concluded that assessee has not concealed the particulars of income. It doesn't call for visiting the asse....