Kuldip Singh ORDER
Anil Chaturvedi, Member (A)
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.03.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2008-09.
2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under:
3. Assessee is a company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 26.09.2008, declaring total income of Rs. 1307,37,84,038/-. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return of income with increased claim of TDS on 05.03.2009. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs. 4585,87,70,541/- by making various additions/disallowances amounting to Rs. 3355,12,31,399/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before ITAT. ITAT vide order dated 13.06.2014 deleted additions/disallowances to the extent of Rs. 3279.25 crores, additions/disallowances to the extent of Rs. 68.60 crores were set aside to the file of AO for reconsidering the matter in light of the directions in the order and confirmed the additions/disallowances to the extent of Rs. 4.86 crores. On the additions/disallowances confirmed by ITAT and some other additions/disallowances which were suo motu surrendered by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. AO vide penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.02.2015 levied the penalty of Rs. 2,47,28,481/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 02.03.2016 (Appeal No. 192/15-16) granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. "Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,32,29,000/- on disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3.89 crores claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble IT AT in the preceding years as well as the year under consideration?
2. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 11,38,000/- on disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 33.47 lacs u/s. 32(1)(iia) which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT in the preceding years as well as the year under consideration?
3. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,27,000/- on disallowance of deduction of Rs. 30.20 lacs claimed by the assessee u/s. 35(1)(iv) which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble IT AT in the preceding years as well as the year under consideration?
4. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 12,000/- on disallowance of insurance charges of Rs. 33,852/- paid on the time of acquisition of vehicles?
5. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 49,000/- on disallowance of expenditure incurred on motor bikes given to various contestants at TV shows, amounting to Rs. 1.43 lacs u/s. 40(a)(ia) which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble IT AT in the year under consideration & the preceding years?
6. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,73,000/'- on disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 21.81 lacs incurred on account of payments to hotels for banquet hall bookings charges and disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 9.78 lacs towards meal expenses at the time of hiring of halls in hotel, u/s. 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source u/s. 1941 and 1940 of the Act?
7. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on disallowance of generator hire c........