Case Law Details
Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that the assessee had claimed business promotion expenses as revenue expenditure which was sought to be treated by the ld. AO as capital expenditure. This disallowance was ultimately sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum appellate proceedings. We find that the issue in dispute was whether the particular expenditure was capital or revenue in nature. Whether the particular expenditure is capital or revenue in nature would squarely fall within the ambit of debatable issue and the law is very well now settled that on a debatable issue, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal in ITA No.2237/Mum/2009 for A.Y.2002-03 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)VII/DCIT-7(1)/IT-09/2008-09 dated 30/01/2009 (ld. CIT(A) in short) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of expenses made u/s.14A of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
