sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 DCIT Circle 2(1) Gurgaon vs Kellog Brown & Roof Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. 16th Floor, Tower-A, DLF Building, Nos. 5, DLF Cyber Terraces, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon
 Dharam Pal, Garg R Kumar & Associates, 7, Adv. Chambers, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad vs ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad
 Satish Singhal, 6, Patpar Road, Shivpuri, New Delhi vs ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi
 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi
 Anupam Sushil Garg, S/o Shri Vijay Garg, C/o Venus Cinema, Railway Road, Saharanpur. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Saharanpur.
 Oriental Building & Furnishing Co.Ltd. C/o. Ravi Gupta, Advocate E-6A, Kailash Colony New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1) New Delhi.a
 Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula, Haryana
 Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited, Multi Location, Multi State
 Ranjana Sen Gupta Raghavan, H-1592, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-71(2), New Delhi
 M/s Sony India Private Limited A-31 , Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate New Delhi -44 vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax , Circle 24 (1), New Delhi
 Manik Singh S/o. Dr. Meharban Singh, A-47, Sector-31, Noida Uttar Pradesh Noida vs. DCIT Room No. 408, 4th Floor, A- 2D, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-24 Noida

M/s. Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Limited Neville House, J.N. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (2) Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Marg Mumbai-400 020.
January, 15th 2015
              ,  Û ( )  

 [^ .. ,     [ Û                               ¢
               ./I.T.A. No.4228/Mum/2012
              ([ [ / Assessment Year :2001-02)

M/s. Nowrosjee        / Dy. Commissioner of
Wadia & Sons           Vs. Income-tax (2)(2)
Limited                    Aayakar Bhavan
Neville House, J.N.        M.K. Marg
Heredia Marg, Ballard      Mumbai-400 020.
Mumbai-400 001.
    . /   . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACN 1836 A
 ( /Appellant)        ..      ( / Respondent)

      / Appellant by                  :    Shri Yogeh Thar
     /Respondent by :                      Shri Asghar Zain-Sr. AR

        / Date of Hearing:                           12/01/2015
                     /Date of                        12/01/2015
     Pronouncement :

                        / O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

     The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee
against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 13/03/2012. The assessee
has agitated the levy of penalty and confirmation of penalty under
section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.
                                  2                   ITA No.4228/M/2012

2.    The brief facts are that the AO during the assessment
proceedings disallowed certain expenditure made in relation to
repairs claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure but held
by AO as capital in nature.

3.    The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee
has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor had
concealed its income. He has submitted, whether expenditure
incurred on repairs was allowable as revenue expenditure or was a
capital expenditure, was a debatable issue. Hence, penalty should
not have been levied by the lower authorities. On the other hand
the ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

4.    We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is
not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or
concealment of income. Merely because certain claim have been
observed when the same was capital in nature, that itself is not
sufficient to justify for levy of penalty in this case under section
271(1)(c). Even the issue whether the expenditure incurred on
repairs was a revenue expenditure or capital is otherwise also a
debatable issue. We, accordingly do not find any justification on
the part of the lower authorities for levy of penalty in this case.
The penalty levied by lower authorities under section 271(1)(c) in
this case is, therefore, is ordered to be deleted.

5.    In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2015.
                           3            ITA No.4228/M/2012

     Û   12/01/2015                          

                  Sd/-               Sd/-
       (B.R. BASKARAN)           (SANJAY GARG )
 Mumbai;         Dated 12 /01/2015
.../ Jv , Sr. PS

    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.   × / The Respondent.
3.    () / The CIT(A)-
4.     / CIT
5.    ,   , 
     / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.   [  / Guard file.

                                 / BY ORDER,
×  //True Copy//
                   (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                 ,  / ITAT, Mumbai.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions