Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 709 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Disallowance of director’s remuneration – Disallowance of technical knowhow – Held that:- The Tribunal has deleted the disallowance on payments of director’s remuneration – thus, there is no justification for levy of penalty for disallowance of payment of remuneration - the assessee has made full disclosure of expenditure incurred for technical knowhow - It was clearly shown in the balance sheet as deferred revenue expenditure - the entire expenditure was paid during the year in the computation of income, same was claimed as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) – Relying upon CIT Vs. Wavin (India) Ltd. [1997 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] - thus, there was no concealment of facts by the assessee in the return of income – there was no justification for the imposition of penalty for disallowing the payment claimed u/s 37(1), since there was full disclosure of expenses so incurred for technical knowhow, genuineness of expenses were not doubted, mere disallowance on the plea of expenses being capital in nature, do not warrant any imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee and revenue is required to show that assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars in his income - When there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - A mere making of claim will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee – thus, the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|