9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible u/s 40(a)(ia). This is a debatable issue. When all such material is available before the AO with two views expressed and the AO took one of such views then where is the question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof? Law does not say that wherever the AO disallow any claim, penalty should invariably be levied. CIT(A) is perfectly justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] Addition of corporate membership payment - CIT(A) found that it is not as if the amount was claimed fraudulently without actual payment but it was onetime payment for a period of 10 years and if the ingredients of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income on 30.9.2008 declaring a loss of ₹ 1,12,02,974/- . During the assessment proceedings, learned AO made an addition of ₹ 7,33,66,487/- in respect of transfer pricing adjustment, ₹ 63,53,939/- due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and ₹ 9 lacs on account of the disallowances of advance payments towards the corporate membership. In the appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the transfer pricing adjustment issue in favour of the assessee but confirmed the other two additions. It is submitted that the assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order of the appellate authority confirming the additions on account of the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and on the advance payments. 3. Learned AO initiated pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the assessment proceedings as sufficient explanation during penalty proceedings which is factually incorrect and on this premise, the finding of the learned CIT(A) cannot be accepted. Learned DR relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510(Del). According to the learned DR, the tax audit report says that certain provisions have to be disallowed, but in spite of the same, the assessee did not do so and thereby furnished the inaccurate particulars thereof. So also, it is her further contention that the corporate membership subscription is annual subscription, as such, the assessee cannot claim the advance subscription paid for 9 years and this also amounts to furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olves around whether the disallowance of the expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of provision made or the disallowance of corporate membership subscription for 9 years in advance, amounts to either concealment of income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. When the assessee had revealed all the facts and the allegation is that in spite of the view of the auditors that since tax had not been deducted at source on some amount, the details of which are well furnished and the assessee entertained an information that the yearend provision for expenses which are reversed at the beginning of the next year are not liable to deduction at source, such amounts were prima facie inadmissible u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This is a debatable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
