Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 359 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- None of the authorities have held that the Applicant-Assessee had not furnished all details of expenditure as well as income in its return with the necessary details. Merely because the Applicant-Assessee's a claim, was disallowed in the earlier Assessment Year would not by itself debar it from making a claim in a subsequent Assessment Year. There is no estoppel against law. The aforesaid fact coupled with the fact that the Assessing Officer while passing an Assessment Order, appears to have been satisfied with the claim that deferred revenue expenditure was a bonafide claim after necessary disclosure. This is self evident as he did not initiate any penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. It is a settled position in law as held by the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] – where all details of expenses and income had been furnished in its return, mere disallowing a claim of expenditure would not by itself lead to the conclusion that there has been concealment of income and/or filing of inaccurate particulars, warranting penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
|