TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear has been assailed on the grounds that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer has wrongly been upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. The learned authorised representative relying upon the order dated June 10, 2015, in I. T. A. Nos. 2897/Delhi/2007 and 2807/Delhi/2007 passed in the quantum proceedings submitted that the addition on the basis of which penalty was sustained stands deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, in the circumstances it was submitted that the penalty order may be quashed. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative considering the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal submitted that the Revenue has not accepted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the present case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative submitted that the explanation offered by the assessee was neither bona fide nor true. 4. The learned authorised representative reiterated that the arguments assailing the merits of the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the quantum proceedings would be at best addressed before the hon'ble High Court and no miscellaneous petition had also been filed by the Revenue as far as the present appeal is concerned. In the present proceedings, in the face of the addition having been deleted it was submitted the arguments have no merit. The decision of the apex court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) sought to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee thus the arguments are abusing the trust reposed in the Revenue and are a waste of time of the court. For the sake of completeness it was submitted that the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the quantum proceedings is supported by the decision of the apex court in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 6366 to 6368 of 2003 in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) dated March 23, 2015. Accordingly the arguments of the Revenue have no merit. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find on a perusal of the penalty order dated March 21, 2009, that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed by the Assessing Officer on account of the following addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that as per section 37, all expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business are allowed in the computation of income unless they are of capital nature or of personal nature. There is no intention of deferred revenue expenditure in the Income-tax Act. In the case of Madras Industrial as relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue on account of the fact that the assessee itself had claimed proportionate amount in the profit and loss account and the hon'ble court had held that in such a scenario proportionate claim was admissible. We further find that section 35D is also not applicable in the case of the assessee as the assessee is a non-banking f....