Introduction
The Supreme Court (‘SC’) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indusind Bank Ltd.[i] dismissed the special leave petition (‘SLP’) filed by the Revenue against the High Court’s (‘HC’) ruling deleting the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘ITA’). This case revolved around the question of the legal acceptability of a depreciation claim on leased assets.
Brief Facts
The assessee had claimed depreciation on leased assets, which was supported by material evidence on record. Despite this, the AO did not agree with the assessee and disallowed the claim, leading to further legal scrutiny.
The assessing officer’s (‘AO’) decision to levy a penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the ITA, was followed by the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (‘ITAT’) that deleted the penalty after discussing the facts at length and considering that the issue was debatable due to the admission of the appeal on quantum addition by the HC.[ii]
Subsequently, the HC ruled in favour of the assessee, holding that the full disclosure of income and its particulars thereof indicated a bona fide claim of depreciation on leased assets. It held that a penalty could not be imposed merely because the depreciation claim was not acceptable in law. The HC cited the SC’s decision in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[iii], which established that the mere non-acceptance of a claim in law does not automatically warrant penalty proceedings. Aggrieved by this decision, SLP was filed by the Revenue before the SC.
Held
The SC ruled in favour of the assessee and dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue, as the matter had been amicably settled between the parties under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
Analysis
The decision provides clarity regarding s. 32 in conjunction with s. 271(1)(c) of the ITA, specifically concerning the depreciation allowance for leased assets. The High Court’s ruling emphasizes that if an assessee’s claim for depreciation on leased assets is substantiated by evidence on record, then a penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the ITA cannot be imposed solely on the ground that the depreciation claim was not legally acceptable.
Consequently, the SC’s dismissal of the SLP highlights fundamental principles in tax law and penalty imposition. It stresses the importance of presenting evidence to support depreciation claims under s. 271(1)(c) of the ITA, transcending mere legal interpretation disputes. This precedent establishes a framework for evidence-based assessments in tax disputes, fostering fairness and efficiency in tax administration.
Additionally, the resolution of the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme sheds light on the scheme’s efficacy in facilitating amicable settlements and reducing litigation. This decision exemplifies an alternative dispute resolution approach beneficial for taxpayers and the Revenue.
The SC’s decision not only addresses the specific dispute but also contributes to a more equitable legal framework, promoting evidence-based assessments and cooperative dispute resolution in tax matters.
End Notes:
[i] [2024] 158 taxmann.com 575 SC (04.01.2024).
[ii] [2019] 105 taxmann.com 391 (HC – Bombay) (22.04.2019).
[iii] [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC).
Authored by Purvi Garg, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.