9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against Revenue. Stamp duty and registration charges paid on leasehold property – CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that since the ownership of the asset was not with the assessee company hence the expenditure involved was revenue in nature. - Held that:- where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties - it must also be noted that the expenditure was in respect of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fee - There was no element of the premium in the amount claimed as expenditure - this expenditure would have been the same even if the lease had been of a shorter duration provided the period of lease was more than one year - The decision in CIT vs Bombay Cycl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) of the Act was also levied. The assessee pleaded that it was an inadvertent error and there was no deliberate attempt or concealment on the part of the assessee to evade taxation in this respect. However, the AO was not satisfied and he levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 3,38,956/-. 4. Upon assessee's appeal the ld. CIT(A) considered the issue and deleted the penalty holding as under :- After careful consideration of the written submission and penalty order it is noticed that the during the relevant Assessment year RoC filing fees of ₹ 10,07,000/- was included under the head rates and taxes. During the assessment assessee provided the break-up of rates and taxes which included RoC fees and accordingly dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee's plea that there was an inadvertent error deserves to be accepted. There was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee. The expenditure made was duly disclosed. Only the treatment thereof as capital or revenue was under dispute. Hence, in our considered opinion, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) where it was expounded that non acceptance of a claim made by the assessee cannot result in automatic levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).. Furthermore we also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Water Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of CIT vs Bombay Cycle Motor Agency 118 ITR 42 (Bom) where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties. The Hon'ble High Court held that the period of the lease was one of ten years, it does not constitute startling difference as would appeal to us to apply a different test than the one which we applied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd's case 113 877 (Bom). It was held that in their view the expenses were rightly considered by the Tribunal as being of revenue in nature. Similarly the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Cinceita Private Limited 137 ITR 652 considered the issue where the period of lease was 20 years. The Hon'ble Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 13. In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. ITA No.713/Kol/2012 (Assessee's Appeal)(A.Yr.2008-09): 14. The issue raised in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 23,18,000/- made by the AO on account of provision for leave encashment u/s 43B(f) of the Act. 15. In this case the AO noted that the assessee has made provision for leave encashment for an amount of ₹ 23,18,000/- and the assessee stated that due to Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. the same was not added to the total income of the assessee. AO observed that against the above order of the Hon'ble Calcutt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
