THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in confirming disallowance of Rs.8,23,935/- made in respect of dead stock expenses. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in confirming disallowance of Rs.30,68,621/- made u/s 14A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in partly confirming proportionate disallowance under section 26(1)(iii) of the Act with a direction to AO to work out proportionate disallowance based on a formula specified in the appellate order.

The assessee company engaged in the business of undertaking of turnkey projects for construction of pipeline contracts, cathodic protection system on such pipelines and other engineering services and contracts, sales and other allied services. The return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 was filed on 30.10.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 12,18,08,170/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,61,81,024/- towards land restoration expenses, addition of Rs. 17,72,324/- towards late payment of Provident Fund dues, disallowance of Rs. 8,23,935/- towards dead stock, disallowance under Section 14A amounting to Rs. 30,68,621/-, disallowance of Rs. 18,19,266/- relating to expenses of rent income, disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- towards interest free funds of group concerns, disallowance of Rs. 14,74,315/- towards stamp duty and share capital expenses and disallowance of Rs. 3,04,74,181/- towards depreciation on plant and machinery. The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 17,87,96,235/-. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

As regards, Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 8,23,935/- with respect to dead stock expenses, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 order dated 11.05.2022.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. A.R. fairly submitted that the issue is covered against the assessee in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 as well as assessment order 2007-08 being ITA No. 3076/Ahd/2010 order dated 25.10.2011. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

As regards Ground No. 2 relating to disallowance of Rs. 30,68,621/- under Section 14A, the Ld. A.R. submitted that both the authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee has earned exempt income being dividend income of Rs. 1,900/-. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income which happens to be Rs. 1,900/- i.e. dividend in assessee’s case. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Madhusudan Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 1715/Ahd/2011) and Vishal Engg. & Galvanizers (ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2014).

The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee derived interest expenses at Rs. 4,18,04,489/- and the average value of investment at Rs. 8,00,77,800/-. The average assets impugned to Rs. 125,46,17,734/- and therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A Rule 8D comes to Rs. 30,68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A).

As regards to Ground No. 3 related to partly confirming the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has made interest free advance on which no interest was charged. In fact, the assessee has interest free funds which are almost higher to that of interest free advances. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 bearing ITA No. 1118/Ahd/2012.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the

Therefore, ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1871/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition ofRs.1,61,81,024/- towards Land Restoration Expenses despite the fact that the same is clearly capital expenditure. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing deduction towards Employees Contribution to PF despite the fact that the same was paid after due dateand hence to be treated as income of the assessee u/s 2(24)(x) read with section36(1)(va)of the Act 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the excess deduction claimed against rent income despite the fact that the assessee had claimed standard deduction u/s 24 as well as various other deductions in the P&L account towards rent expenses. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.13,75,400/- despite the fact that the assessee had given interest free loans to its subsidiaries without establishing any commercial expediency.

As regards Ground No. 1 Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,61,81,024/- made in respect of land restoration expenses. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has ignored the finding of the Assessing Officer and these expenses were disallowed in A.Y. 2007-08 as well as for A.Y. 2008-09. The Assessing Officer has rightly treated the same as capital expenditure. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer stated in the report dated 11.05.2012 that in all the projects where land restoration expenses were claimed, corresponding income was disclosed during the year under consideration. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The issue is identical to the present Assessment Year to that of A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 wherein the Tribunal has observed that if corresponding income has been offered for tax, therefore, these corresponding expenses should also be allowed. The finding of the CIT(A) in assessee’s favour for A.Y. 2008-09 is correct

As regards Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee in case of GSRTC (Supra) Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal is allowed.

As regards Ground No. 3 relating to allowing standard deduction under Section 24(1), the Ld. D.R. submitted that treating the rent income as house property income when the assessee has claimed expenses relevant to leased house property as business expenditure amounts to double deduction and therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made this addition.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The facts are identical in A.Y. 2009-10 to that of A.Y. 2008-09. The CIT(A)

As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed.

As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses are not allowable and relied upon the assessment order.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has incurred stamp paper expenses on working out capital facilities avail during the year under consideration. Schedule 3 of Balance Sheet reveals that the assessee has availed following fresh credit facilities during the year under consideration: Working capital: UCO Bank – Rs.6,64,95,213/- Axis Bank – Rs.13,36,87,119/-

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the stamp duty and share capital expenses were the requirement of the business activity on day-to-day basis and the same was properly documents by the assessee through ledger and other supporting documents which was present before the Assessing Officer. This is a incidental expenditure and therefore, cannot be held as capital expenses. The decision of

As regards Ground No. 6 of Revenue’s appeal relating to allowing depreciation on Plant and Machinery, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and submitted that if the Plant and Machinery have been put to use either the operational income would have been incurred of sub-contractor and equipment hiring charges would have reduced while the same has never happened during the year in assessee’s case. Therefore, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the AO has rightly disallowed the said claim of depreciation.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of undertaking turnkey projects for laying and construction pipelines. Assessee purchased substantial equipments used for construction and infrastructure work. The copies of purchase bills were furnished during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the factum of ownership was never disputed by the Revenue. As regards such assets being to use, the assessee vide letter dated 12.12.2011 furnished project-wise details of machines, name of vendor, date of capitalization, bill reference, page number, rate of depreciation, net value of asset and project in which such assets were utilized. The description of items also appears in the order of the CIT(A). Such machines are in the nature of moving and ready to use machines without requiring any elaborate installation at any place like any plant and machinery. Such assets are moving from one project to another and working for construction and infrastructure projects. Thus,

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure activity conducted by the assessee and submitted the project wise details to the Assessing Officer. Machines were purchased before the end of accounting year i.e. March, 2009 and therefore, the use for the purpose of business cannot be doubted when such type of machine does not require any installation. The CIT(A) has rightly observed that depreciation cannot be disallowed just on the presumption that the assessee did not use the machines purchased by it much before the end of accounting year. As per Explanation 5 to Section 32 (1) it is mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation even if it is not claimed by the assessee if assets are owned

Thus, ITA No. 1871/Ahd/2012 filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2578/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 read as under: “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.3,25,39,891/- despite the fact that the same is clearly capital expenditure. 2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the expenditure under section 24 treating the rent income as house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that the assessee had given interest free loans to its subsidiaries without establishing any commercial expediency. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Stamp Duty and Share Capital expenses to the extent of RS.20,96,388/- despite the fact that these were capital expenses. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition in respect of reimbursement of Service Tax of Rs.2,35,16,841/- receivable from GAIL as per Arbitration award. The CIT(A) has further erred to the extent of admitting the claim of assessee that the payment was stayed by Delhi High Court despite the fact that the income towards arbitration award has already been accrued during the financial year.”

As regards to Ground No. 1 relates to disallowance made in respect of land restoration which is identical to A.Y. 2009-10 and CIT(A) also followed the same assessment year. This issue is identical to

As regards Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal relating to standard deduction under Section 24(1), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of Revenue appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. Hence, Ground No. 2 is dismissed.

As relates to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal relating to disallowance of Rs. 51,10,672/- u/s. 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 being ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012. Hence, Ground No. 3 is dismissed.

As regards to Ground No. 4 relating to disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the same is identical to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. Hence, Ground No. 4 is dismissed.

As regards to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal related to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,35,16,841/- in respect of reimbursement of Service Tax receivable from GAIL, the Ld. D.R. submitted that in the assessee’s case after the assessee obtained legally enforceable right. The assessee has not brought material on record to indicate that the GAIL has taken stay against the award. Simply filing of appeal has no bearing upon such legally enforceable right. Thus, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the AO rightly made addition on this.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said amount of court settlement was offered for tax in F.Y. 2015-16 and therefore, the same cannot be

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the addition is made on the amount which was not received by the assessee during the present assessment year. Subsequently, the assessee has offered the said amount/settlement amount for taxation in F.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Thus, ITA No. 2578/Ahd/2014 filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2652/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11read as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.6,58,289/- on account of late remittance of employees contribution to P.F. relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.). It is submitted with due respect to the above decision that subsequently the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) has taken a view in favor of the assessee while disagreeing with the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. That apart, since the SLP filed against the said decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been admitted, the issue in dispute being addition of Rs.6,58,289/- be decided accordingly.

As regards to Ground No. 1 relates to late payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI which is covered against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of GSRTC (Supra).Hence Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

As regards Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relating to site expenses the same is identical to Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2009-10 of assessee’s appeal. No contrary facts were pointed out by the Ld. DR. Hence, Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal is allowed.

As regards Ground No. 3 relating to disallowance under Section 14A the same is allowed as no exempt income has been earned during the year. The reliance of the assessee’s own case by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 372 ITR 97 (Guj.) is relevant in this year. Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal is allowed.

As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate and books of accounts, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09 as the CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee. Hence, Ground No. 5 is dismissed.

Thus, ITA No. 2652/Ahd/2014 filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 is partly allowed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 821/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 read as under: “1. The learned CIT9A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 38,70,749/- (although AO has levied penalty on addition of Rs. 23,84,449/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has rectified the amount at Rs. 38,70,749/-) made by the A.O. on account of income reflected in TDS Certificates but not recorded in the books of account. In view of facts, submission and evidences filed coupled with legal position vis-à-vis facts of the appellant’s case, the impugned penalty confirmed on the addition of Rs. 38,70,749/- ought to have been deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases. In view of facts, submissions and evidences filed coupled with legal position vis-à-vis facts of the appellant’s case, the impugned

As regards to penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance on account of income reflected in TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the addition on account of bogus purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnish inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.

The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee failed to bring the parties before the Assessing Officer and to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer that sales shown was bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).

Hence, ITA No. 821/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed by the assessee is allowed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 read as under: “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied on the following additions/disallowances out of the total penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.”

ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed by the Revenue is below the tax limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 05/2018 and hence dismissed on the same count.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1358/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 read as under: “1. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,86,94,551/- made u/s 145A of the I.T.Act. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book profit. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above extent. The appellant craves, to leave, to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

ITA No. 1358/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 filed by the Revenue, Ground No. 1 is related to addition of Rs. 1,86,94,551/- made under Section 145A. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO found that opening balance of "CENVAT credit" was Rs. 1,65,68,670/-whereas closing balance of CENVAT credit was Rs.3,52,63,221/- and thus, there was an increase of Rs.1,86,94,551/- (Rs.3,52,63,221 - Rs.1,65,68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance that the assessee has followed “exclusive method” on accounting for the purpose of valuation of inventories in light of AS-2 on

Thus, ITA No. 1358/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 read as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte appeal order without proper consideration and appreciation of the elaborate written submission dated 11/05/2016 filed before his predecessor during the course of appeal hearing. The ld. CIT(A) was thus not justified in passing an ex-parte order in violation of the principles of natural justice and equity. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the AO had levied penalty of Rs.1,38,600/- u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the Act in a mechanical manner in respect of delay in filing TDS returns without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case. In view of the facts and explanation filed for the default ranging between 67 to 303 days aggregating to 1386 days, the default, if any, being on account of reasonable cause, the impugned penalty of Rs.1,38,600/- u/s.272A(2)(g) of the Act required to be deleted. 3. the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that since there was delay in depositing the TDS in view of liquidity problems, which was evident from the huge loss of Rs.62crores incurred by the company, the delay in filing the TDS returns was merely consequential and was thus neither intentional nor willful

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO levied penalty of Rs. 1,38,600/- U/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act on the count that assessee failed to file statements in Form 24Q / 26Q for F/Y. 2013-14 within the prescribed time limit. The Ld. AR submitted that such penalty came to be confirmed by CIT(A) as well. The Ld. AR submitted that Section 272A(2)(g) is not at all applicable in this case. Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where a person fails to furnish a certificate as required by Section 203 or Section 206C. Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where a person fails "to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of statement within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) or section 206C. In this case, the AO has levied penalty of Rs.1,38,600/- u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act on the count that the assessee failed to file statements in Form 24Q / 26Q for F/Y.2013-14 within the prescribed time limit. Penalty for the so-called default referred to by the AO has been prescribed u/s 272A(2)(k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance of show cause notice. At the outset, it is clarified that the "show cause notice" for levy

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee though failed to file statements in Form 24Q / 26Q for F/Y. 2013-14 within the prescribed time limit, yet there are reasonable circumstances which was pointed out by the Ld. AR during the hearing for the said delay. Further it is a matter of fact that Penalty for the said default referred to by the Assessing Officer has been prescribed u/s 272A(2)(k)

Thus, ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is allowed.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2408/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 read as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte appeal order without proper consideration and appreciation of the elaborate written submission dated 14/07/2016 filed before his predecessor during the course of appeal hearing. The ld. CIT(A) was thus not justified in passing an ex-parte order in violation of the principles of natural justice and equity. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the AO had levied penalty of Rs.22,900/- u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the Act in a mechanical manner in respect of delay in filing TDS returns without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case. In view of the facts and explanation filed for the default ranging between 20 to 113 days aggregating to 229 days, the default, if any, being on account of reasonable cause, the impugned penalty of Rs.22,900/- u/s.272A(2)(g) of the Act required to be deleted. 3. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that since there was delay in depositing the TDS in view of liquidity problems, which was evident from the huge loss of Rs.36crores incurred by the company, the delay in filing the TDS returns was merely consequential and was thus neither intentional nor willful and at best it can be termed as mere technical or venial breach of law.

The issue relating to penalty u/s 272A (2)(g) is identical to that of A.Y. 2014-15. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No. 2408/Ahd/2017 for A. Y. 2015-16 is allowed.

In result, ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10, ITA No. 2652/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 filed by the assessee are partly allowed. In result, ITA No. 821/Ahd/2015 for A. Y. 2008-09, ITA No.2406/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 and ITA No. 2408/Ahd/2017 for A. Y. 2015-16 filed by the assessee are allowed. In result, ITA No. 1871/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. In result, ITA No. 2578/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11, ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 and ITA No. 1358/Ahd/2017 filed by revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 are dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/10/2022

�वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,