TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Tribunal decision on revenue vs. capital expenditure interpretation under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus H.M.A. Udyog (P.) Ltd.</h3> The High Court dismissed the appeal in a case involving the interpretation of revenue vs. capital expenditure and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of revenue expenditure vs. capital expenditure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.Interpretation of revenue vs. capital expenditure: The assessee, engaged in various businesses, claimed expenditure on repairs and new ventures as revenue expenditure, but the Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure, leading to additions in assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld this view.Penalty under section 271(1)(c): Penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, however, found the nature of the expenditure debatable and ruled that it did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).The High Court, after considering arguments from both sides, concluded that the assessee did not attempt to conceal income particulars. It was noted that the assessee provided all relevant income details, albeit with a differing interpretation on the nature of expenditure. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the issue was debatable and did not warrant penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).In light of the above, the High Court found no substantial question of law for consideration and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
