Case Law Details
Aristo Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee had furnished complete details as regards its claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(4) of the Act, thus merely for the reason that the said claim of deduction did not find favour with the A.O would not justify imposition of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. We are further of the considered view that the re-characterization of the computer software expenditure as a capital expenditure by the A.O, as against the claim of the same as a revenue expenditure by the assessee, though would justify the disallowance of the said expenditure, but keeping in view the fact that the assessee had made a complete disclosure of the details of the said expenditure and claim of the same as a revenue expenditure in its return of income, thus no penalty under Sec. 271(1) (c) could have been imposed in the hands of the assessee.
Still further, we are persuaded to subscribe to the view of the CIT(A) that no penalty was called for in the hands of the assessee in respect of the adhoc 15% disallowance of the gift articles expenses as was finally sustained by the CIT(A). We are of the considered view that though an unproved claim of expenditure would justify an addition/disallowance, however nothing short of a disproved claim would justify imposition of penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
The present appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Mumbai for A.Y. 2005- 06, A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated 21.03.2011 for A.Y. 2005-06; order passed by the A.O under Sec. 154 of the Act, dated 24.08.20 12 for A.Y. 2009-10; order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.20 13 for A.Y. 2011-12; and order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.01.2015 for A.Y. 2012-13. As certain common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, thus the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a composite order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A), setting aside the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06. The revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) has raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
