9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 259 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and argued that the Hon ble High Court held that where notice did not show the nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee has understood purport and import of the notice, hence, no prejudice was caused to the assessee. As decided in M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Also see M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] - We hereby hold that the penalty levied by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the following: Disallowance of the provision for fine and penalty debited by the assessee to P L A/c and treating the same as contingent liability. Reimbursement of mobile sets given to employees was considered as capital expenditure which was treated as revenue expenditure by the assessee. One time transaction charge paid to IBM on signing of agreement treated as revenue expenditure by the assessee has been treated as capital expenditure. 4. The Assessing Officer made similar observation while initiating penalty on conclusion of the discussion under each item. The relevant portion of the observation of the Assessing Officer while initiating the penalty on all the three items is as under: I am satisfied that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 8. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
