9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the eligible unit was on the basis of its understanding that only direct expenses i.e. having a direct nexus to the eligible unit is debitable. This view of the assessee in fact has found acceptance by the decision of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Work Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2012 (9) TMI 620 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. Therefore, the view / opinion of the respondent assessee in not allocating any personnel expenses of the Head Office to the eligible units is a possible view. Therefore, it cannot be said on these facts that there was any filing inaccurate particulars and / or concealment of income on the part of the respondent assessee warranting imposition of penalty.- Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 1024 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment for both the assessment years in quantum proceedings held that the expenses relating to top management salary (personnel expenses) which had been debited in its entirety to Head Office, should be apportioned also to the eligible unit at Wada. Therefore, he allocated 40% of the personnel expenses to the Wada unit. This was in line with the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2001-02. 4. In appeal taken in quantum proceedings, the Tribunal held that the allocation of personnel expenses which had in fact been debited to Head Office account should be allocated to the extent of 10% to the eligible unit at Wada. The aforesaid allocation of per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0% was purely on adhoc basis. Moreover, the Tribunal has held that the respondent assessee is maintaining separate books of accounts in respect of each of its unit and the expenses incurred have been debited to each such account maintained separately. No defects were found in the maintenance of the books of accounts or even in the manner of allocation of expenses. Further, the Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied on account of adhoc allocation of Head office expenses to the eligible units. Such adhoc allocation would always to subject matter of opinion and cannot be said to be on account of concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8. It further recorded that on similar set of facts permeating through the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units. Before us, the respondent assessee in support of its submissions that nonallocation of Head Office (personnel expenses) to the eligible unit was on the basis of its understanding that only direct expenses i.e. having a direct nexus to the eligible unit is debitable. This view of the assessee in fact has found acceptance by the decision of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Work Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 350 ITR 366. Therefore, the view / opinion of the respondent assessee in not allocating any personnel expenses of the Head Office to the eligible units is a possible view. Therefore, it cannot be said on these facts that there was any filing inaccurate particulars and / or concealment of income on the part of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
