TATA MOTORS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 2 (1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
Since the addition on which the penalty was levied was deleted in the quantum proceedings, the penalty itself has no basis. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee was levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The quantum appeal for the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition on which it is based has been deleted in the quantum appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 14.10.2009, passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-6, Mumbai in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 1998-99.
The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty on amount of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.5,99,304/- on the assets given on lease to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. Before us, the learned senior counsel, Shri Dinesh Vyas, submitted that in the quantum proceedings, this Tribunal in vide order dated 06.01.2017 has deleted the said disallowance of depreciation of leased assets. From the said order he pointed out that this issuehas been elaborately discussed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 1997-98, vide para 5 to 5.3, which has been followed in A.Y. 1998-99. Whence the addition itself stands deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has no legs to stand.
The learned DR also admitted that in quantum appeal this issue stands decided in favour of the assessee.
After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the Tribunal order in the assessee’s own case in the quantum proceedings, we find that the issue of disallowance of depreciation of leased assets has been decided in favour of the assessee and depreciation has been allowed. Accordingly, the penalty levied on said addition/disallowance stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this17thday of January 2017
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026