9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) erred in not appreciating that the deduction of ₹ 57, 18,600/- being the charges paid to Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital, stamp duty, filing fee etc. paid by the appellant was claimed in the return of income as the authorized capital of the appellant had to be increased to ₹ 100 crores in order to issue equity shares and optionally convertible cumulative redeemable preference shares totaling to ₹ 57 crores in terms of restructuring package for conversion of loans and advances due to IDBI as well as Garware Polyester Ltd., and there was no fresh infusion of capital. The appellant was advised that in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of General Insurance Company Ltd., (254 ITR 203) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be levied. However, AO did not agree and levied the penalty by relying on some case laws. 3. Before the ld. CIT(A) it was mainly submitted that assessee owed some loans to IDBI which were restructured. According to the restructuring package by the IDBI, loans and advances as well as interest thereon to the company as well as Garware Polyester Ltd. was converted into the equity shares and optional convertible redeemable preference shares. For issuing these shares the assessee company had to increase its authorised share capital and assessee was advised to treat the expenses as revenue expenditure in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. General Insurance Co. Ltd. [254 ITR 203] as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d India Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. General Insurance Corpn. Of India [supra] that expenditure incurred on issue of bonus shares was of revenue nature. In fact, this decision has already been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. He urged that there is plethora of decisions available saying that decision in the case of Brook Bond India is not applicable to the issuance of debentures and what has been issued by the company is only convertible debentures. In the light of this background assessee under the advice claimed the amount paid to the Registrar of Companies as revenue expenditure. No tax advantage was sought to be gained because even after this addition, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance at the provision of s. 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word particulars used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee the penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
