TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-22, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-22/IT/391/2014-15 dated 23-04-2015. The Assessment was framed by DCIT Circle 14(3)(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2011-12 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The penalty was levied by ACIT Circle-10(2), Mumbai for the AY 2011-12 vide order dated 28-08-2014. 2. The only issue in this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e total amount of Rs. 71,81,942 was disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added to the total income. The AO started the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty on merits by observing in Para 2.3 as und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. 344 ITR 109 by Karnataka High Court. The appellant contends where the High Courts have held that expenditure disallowed by the A.O. is revenue expenditure and allowable in nature, hence, there are two views in this issue. One issue considered by the A.O. and the other issue that the expenditure incurred is revenue expenditure as held by the Rajasthan High Court and Karnataka High Court. Hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the facts of the case that the assessee had issued compulsorily convertible debentures on Which it had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 71,81,942/- towards due diligence and professional consultancy but the AO considered this as capital expenditure and disallowed the same and also levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are....