Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 859 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (8) TMI 859 - ITAT DELHI - [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 528 - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In the case of K. C. Builders v. Asst. CIT [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court] which has authoritatively laid down that where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied has been deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive. We find that no Departmental 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

Swaroop, Advocates For the Respondent : A. K. Saroha, CIT-Departmental Representative ORDER Diva Singh (Judicial Member) 1. By way of the present appeal filed by the assessee the correctness of the order dated December 24, 2010, of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, pertaining to the 2000-01 assessment year has been assailed on the grounds that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer has wrongly been upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (App .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tax Appellate Tribunal submitted that the Revenue has not accepted the quantum order passed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, it was his submission that while deciding the appeal the grievance posed by the Revenue towards the finding in the quantum order may be recorded. The learned authorised representative objected to this argument and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax- Departmental representative did not press the issue further. However, permission to file written submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entative further contended thereon that the decision arrived at in the quantum proceedings was not accepted by the Revenue and when this fact is read along with the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), the assessee does not have any case. Referring to the facts of Reliance Petroproducts it was submitted that the assessee therein had duly filed an explanation giving reasons for making its claim and having filed the explanation th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

us petition had also been filed by the Revenue as far as the present appeal is concerned. In the present proceedings, in the face of the addition having been deleted it was submitted the arguments have no merit. The decision of the apex court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) sought to be distinguished on facts has no relevance as the assessee is not relying on the said decision. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proceedings is decided in the Revenue's favour by the higher forum in such an eventuality the Revenue may find itself in a predicament. Accordingly it was his submission that he may be allowed to argue in the penalty proceedings how the issue cannot be said to have been conclusively decided in favour of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. These arguments of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative were again strongly opposed by the learned authorised represent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me-tax Appellate Tribunal in the quantum proceedings is supported by the decision of the apex court in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 6366 to 6368 of 2003 in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) dated March 23, 2015. Accordingly the arguments of the Revenue have no merit. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find on a perusal of the penalty order dated March 21, 2009, that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f account amounting to ₹ 12,22,63,212." 6.1. In the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issues addressed in (a), (b) and (c) above quashed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and on the issue addressed in (d) the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was upheld. We find from the record that in the quantum proceedings amongst other grounds, the assessee had raised ground No. 5 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which reads as under : .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e through the material placed on record. We find that as per section 37, all expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business are allowed in the computation of income unless they are of capital nature or of personal nature. There is no intention of deferred revenue expenditure in the Income-tax Act. In the case of Madras Industrial as relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue on account of the fact that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ies of the assessee and copy of order is placed at paper book pages 189-222. . . 18. From the facts of the present case, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had incurred the expenditure and the expenses are not of capital nature, therefore, as per section 37 of the Act, these are allowable in the year in which such expenditure has been incurred. The Assessing Officer had relied upon the judgment of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 ( .....

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