TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case during the assessment certain additions were made. Upon appeal to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted the substantial relief. When the matter travelled to the ITAT, part of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed and one matter was remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The factual position in a nutshell is captured as under:- S.No. Particulars on which addition has been made Amount (in Rs.) Before Assessing Officer C.I.T.(A) ITAT order 1 Software Expenses incurred by the assessee 92,750/- Addition in the order Confirmed the addition No appeal filed before ITAT 2 Lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty in respect of an addition of Rs.92,750/- made in respect of software expenses. In the written submissions the A.R. has contended that the expenses are on account of annual subscription for renewal of Microsoft licenses. These expenses are recurring in nature and are incurred each year for renewal of the subscription. The appellant has not claimed the disallowed part of expense even in the next year as it was the consistent policy of the company to claim as expenses as and when incurred. The Ld. A.R. has stated that genuineness of the expense was not doubted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The only question was to decide the year in which such expenses was allowable. I have perused the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of deleting the penalty in this regard. 8. In support of our above adjudication, we place reliance upon the decision of the latest Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. wherein it has been inter-alia held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word 'concealment' and 'inaccurate' continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that if the contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oreign exchange of Rs.5,51,578/- and unsecured loans obtained by the assessee during the year amounting to Rs.45,94,525/-. We find that these additions were deleted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and his order was upheld by the ITAT in ITA No.3451/Del/2009 for A.Y. 2004-05 vide order dated 14.5.2010. Hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this regard also does not survive. 10.1 However, as regards the interest on loan granted by the assessee to its Director amounting to Rs.17,46,330/-. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief of Rs.3,76,262/-. The issue was remanded by the tribunal to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to be decided afresh in accordance with law. Since the issue h....