TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 92,716/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a private limited company engaged in trading of chemicals, dyes and intermediates. The assessee also acts as a commission agent. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 26/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,19,41,810/- comprising of income from house property and income from business. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26/12/2016 determining total income at Rs. 3,30,50,210/-. In first appeal, the income of the assessee was enhanced by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 2,7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respective properties and the written down value before the lower authorities. This enabled the ld. CIT(A) to actually identify the written down value of respective properties that were let out and calculate the depreciation amount at Rs. 8,81,137/-. The ld. CIT(A) had disallowed the said depreciation on the ground that since the rental income derived from those properties were taxed under the head 'income from house property' and assessee would be entitled for statutory deduction @30% towards repairs alone and no further deduction is permissible under the head ' income from house property'. We find that this Tribunal while disposing off the quantum appeal, upheld the action of the ld. CIT(A) in principle, in disallowing the depreciation t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the recent decision in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd., vs. CIT dated 12/06/2020 reported in 117 Taxman.com 182(Bom). Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the penalty levied in the instant case amounting to Rs. 92,716/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3.4. Even otherwise on merits, we find that it was the assessee which has actually provided all the details in respect of value of properties which were purchased from Financial Year 1990-91 onwards and the respective written down value at the end of each year befo....