TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds of appeal: - "01. Because the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,26,065/- under section 271(1)(c), which penalty is contrary to facts, bad in law be deleted. 02. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee company being assessed as per section 115JB on the Book Profit and not as per the general computation of income, there being no tax liability on the same, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not applicable, the penalty imposed is bad in law be deleted. 03. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment has been framed as per the provisions of section 115JB and not as per the general....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act. Thereafter, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed amounting to Rs. 1,26,065/- vide order dated 15.03.2019. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also sustained the penalty. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Apropos the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the income of the assessee has been determined u/s 115JB of the Act; therefore, there is no loss of Revenue. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Havells India Ltd. in ITA No. 1247/Del/2022, vide order dated 16.04.2025. Further reliance has been placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, otherwise, "book profits" are deemed as the total income of the appellant in terms of Section 115JB of the Act. 22. In the present case, the income computed as per the normal procedure was less than the income determined by legal fiction namely "book profits" under Section 115 JB of the Act. On the basis of normal provision, the income was assessed in the negative i.e. at a loss of Rs. 369521018. On the other hand, assessment under Section 115 JB of the Act resulted in calculation of profits at Rs. 40163180. 23. In view thereof, in conclusion, the assessment order records as follows:- "Assessed at Rs. 40163180 u/s 115 JB, being higher of two. Interest u/s 234B and 234C has been charged as per the provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two. Tax is thus paid on the income assessed under Section 115 JB of the Act. Hence, when the computation was made under Section 115 JB of the Act, the aforesaid concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all. 26. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to sustain the order of the Tribunal, though on different grounds. Therefore, while we do not agree with the reasoning and approach of the Tribunal, for our reasons disclosed above, we are of the opinion that penalty could not have been imposed even in respect of claim of depreciation made by the assessee. This appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6. This judgment has been followed by the co-ordinate ....