2025 (11) TMI 1828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,20,54,68,920/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 122,32,40,620/- by making disallowance of Rs. 1,05,69,000/- u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D of the IT Rules. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 154 of the Act on account of mismatch in prepaid taxes and interest. 3. Subsequently, the PCIT noticed that the assessee company received incentive from the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme Incentives-2007 amounting to Rs. 4,80,18,000/-. The assessee company has not given effect of the same as per provisions of section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act i.e. the assessee has shown the subsidy amount in financi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the cost of assets for the purpose of calculating depreciation in the light of provisions of section 43(1). However it had not done so. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has excess claimed depreciation on P&M by Rs. 72,02,700/- and the same is hereby disallowed and made to the total income of the assessee. As the assessee has not shown particulars of income correctly in its return for the year under consideration, reasons as mentioned hereinabove, penalty proceedings is being initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs. 72,02,700/-]" 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition on the ground that the Tribunal has quashed the re-assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cost subsidy is not deducted from the depreciation claimed. Since the revision order was declared as invalid, therefore, no changes must be made to the original Assessment Order passed by the AO." 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,02,700/- i.e. excess claim of depreciation on P&M by Rs. 72,02,700/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an "erroneous". 12. In the present case, the ld. AR had demonstrated before us the issue sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT in exercise the power vested with him u/s 263, was examined by the Assessing Officer and took a plausible view during the course of assessment proceedings. No doubt the assessment order is silent on this point. But, generally, the issues which are acceptable to the Assessi....