2010 (5) TMI 710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals) for the assessment year 2005-06 challenging the confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 1,72,191. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 5,22,591 as fees and drug registration charges. The details whereof were placed before the Assessing Officer. The expenses have been held to be genuine. The assessee contended that it being....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tails were furnished which were accepted. The Assessing Officer however on ad hoc basis held that Rs. 52,000 only is revenue expense pertaining to this year, clearly implying that the Assessing Officer treated it as deferred revenue expenditure. The expenses for drug registration charges are revenue in nature without which this cannot be sold in foreign markets and the registration is given for a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eferred revenue expenditure, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is unjustified. The learned Departmental representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The drug registration fee paid by the assessee for sale in foreign market has been held to be genuinely incurred. The Assessing Officer held....