9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Krishnan, Advocate. ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral) In this appeal by the Revenue relating to assessment year 1992-93, by order dated 7th August, 2002, the following substantial question of law was admitted for hearing:- "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 45 lacs, paid by the assessee to the Customs authorities on account of redemption fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs under the Indian Customs Act, 1962, (Customs Act, for short) were held whereby, redemption fine of Rs. 90,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed on the respondent-assessee, which on appeal was reduced to Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-, respectively. 3. The question raised in the present appeal is whether redemption fine of Rs. 45,00,000/- could be claimed as an expenditure und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . N.M. Parthasarathy, [1995] 212 ITR 105 and decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay, [1993] 201 ITR 684. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that the decision in Usha Micro Process Controls Ltd. (supra) requires reconsideration in view of decisions of other high courts as noticed in Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the impugned order, is that M/s India Craft had initially entered into a contract and had purchased Isobutanol under REP licence and the same was subsequently purchased by the respondent-assessee on high-sea basis. This was a commercial transaction between two unrelated parties. It is in these circumstances, that the respondent-assessee had applied for cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -assessee was not blameworthy or commanding censure. The respondent-assessee wanted to set-off the redemption fine from the consideration received by them. In fact, the respondent-assessee had only received the net amount after adjustment of the redemption fine. Of course, the penalty amount is not a subject matter of the present appeal and we express no opinion in that regard. 7. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
