9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized statements or assumptions, but would need to be factually determined, separately qua each provision, even as was done by the tribunal in the quantum proceedings – thus, the matter is required to be CIT(A). Disallowance of software expenses and disallowance of deduction u/s.80-HHB – Held that:- There is no question of any penalty in view of the order by the tribunal in the quantum proceedings deleting the disallowance -even where challenged by the Revenue, i.e., assuming so, its acceptance by the tribunal - the matter posing mixed question of fact and law, would exclude penalty – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2924/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2014 - Shri D. Manmohan, VP And Shri Sanjay Arora, AM,JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, the purview of the hon ble court in appeal would only be on matters involving substantial question of law. As such, to the extent the assessee s explanation in respect of the adjustments confirmed for disallowance concern matters of fact which we observe to be substantially so, even as is the case of the authorities below, it would be required to be seen if the explanation is rooted in facts or stands substantiated. If so, there could be no occasion to justify penalty. Secondly, again, where and to the extent the assessee s explanation is primarily or substantially legal in nature, its admissibility as a valid explanation would have to be examined with reference to the settled law in the mater inas- much as no view contrary thereto c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C) and Rotark Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC). The matter thus is principally factual. In this regard, we observe that while the assessee claims to have followed the mandate of the Accounting Standard (AS) 7, advocating percentage completion method, by making an informed estimate based on a technical assessment/s, the Revenue finds the impugned provision to have no basis in facts, the costs claimed being uncertain and contingent. Clearly, the matter cannot be decided on generalized statements or assumptions, but would need to be factually determined, separately qua each provision, even as was done by the tribunal in the quantum proceedings. We, accordingly, only consider it fit and proper, in view of the foregoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
