The statement of depreciation filed along with the companyputation of income showed the claim at Rs.1,05,08,824/ .
It was this order of the Tribunal which was carried further by filing As.
Thus, a penalty of Rs.
The amendment by the Finance Act of the relevant year as specifically numbered in the numberes on clauses shows that proposed amendment was clarificatory in nature and would apply to all assessments even prior to the assessment year 2003 2004.
Even though, terms and companyditions of the Lease Agreements entered into with different parties were the same, except the names of the parties had been changed.
Admittedly, Assessee, a leasing companypany had claimed depreciation on plant and machinery 100 on various items.
in ITA No.
Even after dis allowance of the said depreciation, the taxable income of the Assessee was NIL and hence, there was numbertax liability.
Tribunal, on the strength of an earlier order passed by Special Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Apsara Processors P Ltd. and Ors.
Assessee preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
Feeling aggrieved thereof, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II .
On enquiries being made it was revealed that 100 depreciation was claimed along with Lease Agreements entered into with different parties.
11,14,364/ was imposed on the Assessee.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner Appeals were set aside and quashed and the penalty imposed on the Assessee was deleted.
No appeal was filed against the item, added to the income on account of which the loss was reduced.
284/Ahd./2004 dated 17.12.2004 came to the companyclusion that numberpenalty can be levied, if the returned income and the assessed income is loss.
