VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 520/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 August 2026AY 2018-1925 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the difference in depreciation rate was a debatable issue, especially since the High Court admitted a substantial question of law. Similarly, the disallowance of business expenditure was based on a difference of opinion, not concealment. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation at 15% on plant and machinery, but the Assessing Officer allowed only 10%. The assessee also claimed certain donations as business expenditure, which were partly disallowed. Penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A for these disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A are leviable when disallowances arise from debatable issues or differences of opinion, rather than concealment of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM DB BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Hearing: 11.08.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

These three appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate Orders of the learned CIT(A), dated 21.09.2020, 15.05.2023 and 27.06.2025 arising from penalty orders passed u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act [in short

2 ITA.Nos.516, 519 & 520/Viz./2026 "the Act"], 1961 for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2016- 2017 and penalty u/sec.270A of the Act for the assessment year 2018-2019, respectively.

2.

For the assessment year 2013-2014 the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →