Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 362 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars/documents – Held that:- Assessee company is an old assessee which is assisted by Chartered Accountant and hence it cannot be accepted that the excess claim of depreciation has been made through oversight. In view of that matter, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the wrong/excess claim of depreciation is not out of bonafide/inadvertent mistake of the assesseee – Decided in favor of Revenue. Levy of penalty for disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act – Held that:- Following similar directions of the ITAT in the earlier years to restrict the disallowance attributable towards earning of this dividend income u/s 14A at 2% of the earning of dividend received against which the assessee has not preferred any appeal to the High Court thereby the same becomes conclusive. This results in the presumption that the assessee would have known the eligible disallowance on this issue. When the fact is being so, it is a fit case for levy of penalty – Decided in favor of Revenue. Levy of penalty on disallowance of compensation for agreement for exclusive utilisation in non-compete fees - During the previous year the assessee had paid a sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/- towards compensation for agreement for Exclusive utilisation, non- competitive business practice and keep out covenant. This expenditure in the book of accounts was treated as deferred revenue in nature, the entire sum had been claimed as an allowable expenditure in the year in which the same was incurred, though a different treatment had been adopted in the books of accounts – Held that:- Fact of the non-compete fees has been disclosed by the assessee in the computation of income filed along with the return of income. Since the entire facts have been disclosed by the assessee by way of note in the computation of income and there are several decisions in favour and against the appellant on this issue, agreed with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that the issue of non-compete fee is highly debatable and no penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) can be levied on the debatable issues and the same is upheld – Decided against the Revenue.
|