Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

MPIL Corporation Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 9, Pune

2016 (4) TMI 345 - ITAT PUNE

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee has shown the nature of expenditure in its books of account. Merely claiming of expenditure under wrong head would not make the assessee liable for penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has not disclosed the details of expenditure claimed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Pune dated 04-03-2014 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Textile Machinery and Food Processing Machinery. The assessment in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 was made vide order dated 30-12-2008 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 264 of the Act. During the cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,94,195/- u/s. 14A of the Act and the demerger expenses claimed by the assessee as Revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer held that the claim of the assessee was not proper and there is concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 4,75,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 26-06-2009, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

incurred demerger expenses for the efficient conduct of business. The scheme of demerger was approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 31-07-2001. As per the scheme of arrangement the expenses including stamp duty and registration fee of any deed documents etc. was to be borne by the assessee company. The ld. AR referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court sanctioning the scheme of arrangement at pages 46 to 55 of the paper book. The ld. AR further subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner of Income Tax Vs. Akme Electronics and Control Pvt. Ltd., 267 ITR 396 (Guj); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bush Boake Allen (India) Limited, 135 ITR 306 (Mad); iv. Madras Race Club Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 151 ITR 675 (Mad); v. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Ltd.; 229 Taxman 46 (Guj). In all the above mentioned cases, the Hon'ble Courts have held that the legal/professional charges paid for the amalgamation of the company are allowable as Revenue expen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oston Consulting Group (India) (P.) Ltd., 7 ITR (T) 417; iii. Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills, 224 CTR 1 (SC); iv. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dharamchand L. Shah, 204 ITR 462 (Bom). 4. On the other hand Shri Mukesh Jha representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the levy of penalty in respect of disallowance of ₹ 10,00,000/- on account of demerger expenses. The ld. DR contended that from the peru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the assessee as Revenue expenditure. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied in respect of demerger expenses ₹ 10,00,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s. 37(1) of the Act. According to the Revenue the aforesaid demerger expenses are towards stamp duty for the transfer of capital assets in the scheme of demerger. Therefore, the demerger expenses are capital i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demerger and the nature of expenditure in the various decisions on which the ld. AR has placed reliance are entirely different in character, although both the expenditures have been incurred during restructuring of the companies in the course of amalgamation / demerger. In all the case laws on which the ld. AR has placed reliance to substantiate his claim, the expenditure is towards payment of legal/professional charges. In the present case, the assessee had incurred demerger expenses towards pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd. (supra) has held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which was not accepted by the Revenue. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under: A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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