GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 2055 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (10) TMI 2055 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - dis-allowance under Section 94(7) - purchase of software and treatment of revenue expenditure as capital in nature - incidental expenditure, which was found to be not supported by proof - interest on income tax as assessee has duly debited the amount to its profit and loss account, but it did not add back - Held that:- First one of them falling under Section 94(7) is more or less an error of computation. The second one relate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ittedly is of interest on income tax. The assessee has duly debited this very amount to its profit and loss account but did not add back. We quote case law of Price Water Coopers P. Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] in identical circumstances and hold that this cannot be held to be an instance of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income inviting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. - T.C.A. No. 767 of 2015 - Dated:- 28-9-2015 - V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act ? and (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by holding that it was not a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars especially when the assessee has made wrong claim and Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) would govern the same ?" 2. Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 3. In an assessment made pursuant to a notice issued under Section 143(2), the Assessing Officer found that there were four items, on which, the claim of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommissioner (Appeals) confirmed the same. But, the Tribunal ordered deletion of penalty for the reasons stated in paragraph 6 of the order, which reads as follows : "It also emanates that the first one of them falling under Section 94(7) is more or less an error of computation. The second one relates to treatment of software expenditure as 'capital' in nature' instead of revenue as claimed. We deem it appropriate to observe that this is a highly debatable issue of perennial natu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version