Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 178 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - income derived from providing long term finance - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The CIT(A) had accepted and followed the order of his predecessor for previous assessment year i.e. 2003-04 which is the year under consideration in these appeals. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order for preceding year and directed the AO to allow deduction to the assessee as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. We also note that the ITAT “C” Bench Delhi in the order passed for AY 2004-05 in assessee’s own appeal has also restored this issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration with the directions as reproduced hereinabove. The impugned order of the CIT(A) in the present appeal has been passed on the same line i.e. for AY 2004- 05, therefore, in view of submissions of both the sides, this issue is also restored to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes. Addition of filing fees paid to Registrar of Companies (ROC) amounting - Held that:- The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances of the cases as relied by both the AO as well as the CIT(A) viz. judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. Punjab State Industrial Corporation (1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court) and Brooke Bond (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court) and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by these decisions. Under above noted facts and circumstances, we are unable to see any infirmity, ambiguity or any other valid reason to interfere with the conclusion of the CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO. - Decided against assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) - 100% tax sought to be evaded on ROC fees of ₹ 64,00,000/- paid for increasing the authorized share capital from ₹ 300 crore to ₹ 400 corre - Held that:- AO imposed penalty on wrong premises merely because the claim of the assessee which was fully disclosed in the statement of income was not found to be acceptable by the department but it cannot be held that the assessee either furnished wrong particulars of its income or has concealed particulars of its income to attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, impugned penalty levied on the assessee is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assesse. Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1) (vii) (c) - Held that:- since the quantum assessment and appeal order for A.Y 2003-04, on the basis of which penalty was levied do not survive and the order of second round of assessment is awaited, then the issue of sustainability or validity of the penalty order and impugned order becomes academic and infructuous and hence, the same does not survive for adjudication before this Tribunal and thus, we dismiss the sole ground of the Revenue without any detailed deliberations on merit - Decided in favour of assesse.
|