Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 800 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Nature of fees paid to ROC - Held that:- The ROC fees were duly disclosed - there is no case of concealment - the assessee's plea that there was an inadvertent error deserves to be accepted - There was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee - The expenditure made was duly disclosed - Only the treatment thereof as capital or revenue - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible – Relying uponCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] -non acceptance of a claim made by the assessee cannot result in automatic levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Decided against Revenue. Stamp duty and registration charges paid on leasehold property – CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that since the ownership of the asset was not with the assessee company hence the expenditure involved was revenue in nature. - Held that:- where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties - it must also be noted that the expenditure was in respect of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fee - There was no element of the premium in the amount claimed as expenditure - this expenditure would have been the same even if the lease had been of a shorter duration provided the period of lease was more than one year - The decision in CIT vs Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency [1979 (1) TMI 64 - BOMBAY High Court] followed – Decided against Revenue. FBT on internet charges – Held that:- CBDT Circular are binding upon the revenue – the appeal has been filed in contravention of the Circular issued by the CBDT regarding the monetary limit for filing the appeal before ITAT –Decided against Revenue.
|