2020 (2) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....120/Chd/2019 the assessee has agitated the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee in this respect has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (Ld. CIT Appeals) upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c) being unlawful, perverse and against facts and law needs to be set aside, annulled and vacated; 2. Ld. CIT Appeals order upholding demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c), by considering appellant's bonafide claim of 100% deduction u/s 80-IC based on substantial expansion done by it during AY 2011-12 as an act of concealment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceedings. 3. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee had set up a new Industrial unit after first of January 2003 and had already claimed 100% depreciation u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five assessment years starting from assessment year 2006-07. As per the provisions of section 80IC of the Act, the assessee was entitled to deduction @ 100% u/s 80IC of the Act for the first five years and thereafter for another five years @ 25%. However, the assessee in the 6th year claimed deduction @ 100% on account of substantial expansion of the unit. This is the 7th year from the initial assessment year from which the assessee had started claiming deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the benefit of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Industries, [Civil Appeal No. 7208 of 2018] which has since been overruled by our judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs M/s Aarham Softronics [Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2019] delivered by a three-Judge Bench on 20.02.2019. Following the aforesaid judgment, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court. Sd/- .......................... J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) Sd/- .......................... J (VINEET SARAN) New Delhi; May 03, 2019." The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that assessee is a proprietor of M/s Adley Formulations. That the appeal before the Tribunal was filed in the quantum proceedings in the name of the assessee Shri Vijay Kumar Batra, Prop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of appeals with the lead case being 'Pr. CIT, Shimla vs M/s Aarham Subtonics' in Civil No. 1784 of 2019 dated 20.2.2019. Following the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.05.2019 (supra) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. We find that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11542/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court was filed against the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 6.9.2018 passed in ITA No. 303/ 2017. As observed above, ITA No. 303 of 2017 was filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2016 in ITA No. 241/Chd/2016 for assessment year 2012-13, which belong to the same assessee. In view of this, the issue in the quantum proceedings has been decided by the H....