9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich had been filed first time before the CIT(A) have not been examined - The issue has been restored for fresh examination. Payments to Midday Outdoor - Held that:- The assessee had taken certain out door contracts for which it had no infrastructure of its own and had utilized the facilities of MOL for which the cost incurred by MOL had been reimbursed by the assessee - There were discrepancies in the findings of CIT(A) in different years regarding this issue - AO himself has allowed 50% of expenses which means he has admitted the use of assets but has given no basis for disallowance of 50% - The issue requires fresh examination at the level of AO. Professional charges and travel expenditure – Held that:- These expenses had been inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15th February 2007, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2001-02. The sole issue raised by the Revenue is, whether or not the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 24,12,560 imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), vide oder dated 26th July 2013. 2. At the outset, it has been submitted before us that in the quantum proceedings, most of the issues in relation to which the penalty has been levied have been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer or has been deleted by the Tribunal. 3. The subject matter of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is mainly on account of followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing comparative rates. However we note that the assessee vide letter dated 3.7.2004 filed before CIT(A) had given comparative statement of billing done in the month of December 2000, February 2001, March 2001 and April 2001 to demonstrate that billing in the months of January 2001 to March 2001 for similar advertisements had been made at double rate. These details which had been filed first time before the CIT(A) have not been examined. In our view, to arrive at a fair decision in the matter, these details are required to be examined at the level of AO. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT (A) on this point and restore the issue to the file of AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination and after allowing opportunity of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee had used the facility of MOL, he has however admitted that agreement had been produced but the same was not on stamp paper. In assessment year 2002-03 CIT (A) has given a finding that there was an agreement which required the assessee to compensate the MOL in respect of use of fixed asset and the employees of MOL. But there was no clause for bearing the interest burden. He had therefore confirmed the disallowance of interest and the balance disallowance had been deleted. Thus we find discrepancies in the findings of CIT(A) in different years. The assessee has also claimed that it had not made any claim in assessment year 2002-03. We also note from page 78 of the paperbook for assessment year 2001-02, that the assessee has g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that these expenses were already included in the share issue expenses. The assessee has however pointed out that share issue expenses had been deducted from share premium in the balance sheet which is clear from schedule B of the audited account placed at page 107 of the paper book. Therefore, it is cleare that share issue expenses had not been claimed as revenue expenditure in the PL Account. Thus apparently there is no double claim of deduciton. However CIT(A) has also given a finding that there was no evidence that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. This aspect has not been examined by the AO as he disallowed the claim on the ground that these were already included in the share issue expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee had received any income. The claim of the assessee that no income had been actually received and it was only notional entry has not been controverted before us by producing any material. The assessee had published the advertisement for its own business and, therefore, the assessee could not earn income from itself. No income could, therefore, be assessed on account of notional intry. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order of CIT(A) and the same is set aside and the addition made is deleted." 12. Thus, once the addition itself has been deleted, then the levy of penalty on this score has no legs to stand and, therefore, the same is hereby deleted. 13. In the result, Revenue's appeal is treated as partly allowed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
