Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 9 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) – dis-allowance of expenditure on replacement of Air conditioners and stabilizers under buyback scheme as revenue expenditure – Held that:- Essentially the expenditure on replacement being not for renewal or restoration but for preserving or maintaining the existing asset is not a current repairs. However at relevant time when the claim was made in present case, the deduction of such claim as revenue expenditure was debatable and the jurisdictional High Court also in quantum appeal has admitted the substantial question of law in the backdrop of fact of the opinion entertained by certain courts that it is a revenue expenditure. This by itself goes to show that two views were possible on the issue. Thus, if two views were possible, the explanation offered by it could not said to be false. In any event, none of the authorities below have recorded a finding that the assessee in its return has furnished particulars which are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. It, therefore, cannot be a claim of furnishing of inaccurate particulars nor can it be said that the explanation tendered by the assessee is false. Since two views are possible, penalty is not exigible u/s 271(1)(c) – Decided in favor of assessee
|