9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowing of living allowance paid to Russian expats by invoking the provisions of Section 40(1))(ia) - Held that:- When the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) is of the view that no TDS need be made on these living allowances paid to the Russian experts, the question of sustaining, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. The contention of the Ld. DR that the order of the first Ld. CIT(TDS) is for certain other assessment years and hence cannot be applied to this assessment year is devoid of merits on the issue involved is the same. In the result we delete the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 4400,4401/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Hammer Crushers and other items to be assessee on 5.12.1996. The assessee made the payment to Hyderabad Industry Ltd., except the retention amount of ₹ 42,64,673/- which was withheld due to some disputes with the assessee and supplier in relation to supply of the equipments. The supplier in terms of the purchase orders initiated arbitration proceedings and arbitrator passed an award dated 22.4.2003 directing the assessee to pay an amount of ₹ 38,44,264/- alongwith some interest. The assessee challenged the order of arbitration before Hon ble High Court of Delhi but reached to the terms of settlement vide settlement dated 14.5.2007. In accordance to which, the assessee agreed to pay ₹ 60,00,000/- to M/s. Hyderabad Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or beoth such attempts (CIT vs. India Sea Foods,1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai vs CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT vs. Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker). 33.2. In a nutshell, the AO has conclusively proved that the assessee had made patently incorrect claim, in terms of ineligible liability as detailed above, to evade the taxes. There was a deliberate attempt to defraud the Revenue. The findings of the AO were not at all controverted by the assessee. 34. In view of the above discussion facts, circumstances of the case and legal position cited, AO is justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. It is not for the courts to go into the mind of the authorities or trace the reasons from the files of such authorities. b) that sub clause (c) of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c), which is applicable to the assessee, mandates that when there is no difference between the returned income and the assessed income, no penalty can be levied. In other words the penalty leviable when calculated would be zero. He argued that only the quantum of carry forward losses underwent a change due to the disallowance of the compensation paid to M/s. Hyderabad Industries Ltd. but income returned and the income assessed remained the same. c) the disallowance in question was made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- The stand of the AO is that the expenditure in question has not be crystalised during the year and is not allowable in the impugned current year. If so the question of deducting tax at source during the year does not arise. Now the issue is whether penalty can be levied for the reason of furnishing inaccurate particulars when there is a dispute regarding the year in which the claim is allowable. The assessee s submission is that the liability crystalised during the year for the reason that the correspondence and negotiations were undertaken throughout the year and that substantially agreements were reached during the year and it cannot be said that the liability crystalised only on signing of the settlement deed and thereafter filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Officer would be within his powers to initiate proceedings under section 147 for the assessment year 1973-74, it is not possible to hold that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied for the said assessment year. 11. Respectfully following the proposition laid down therein we allow this appeal of the assessee and cancel the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). As we have adjudicated the issue on merits in favour of the assesse, we do not express any view on the legal arguments raised by both sides as it would be an academic exercise. ITA 4401/Del/2011 12. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XIX, New Delhi dated 12.7.2011 pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
