TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kh imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is into manufacturing halogen lamps and CFL lamps. It had two existing units at Noida and one new unit started in Uttarakhand in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') about which there is no dispute. The return of income was filed showing a total income of Rs. 16,85,43,920/- which was subsequently revised by the assessee. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 17,26,15,083/- after making the following additions - disallowances:- i) Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer proceeded to reallocate the managerial remuneration between the three units, thereby disallowing Rs. 37,31,300/- as a deductible expense on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed. Ld. AR submitted that full particulars with regard to payment on account of commission, salary, allowances and perquisites paid to the Director had been duly furnished before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it was not the case of the department that there was any concealment of income or any furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income thereof. It was also submitted that this was the initial year of the Uttarakhand unit in which the plant was set up for the first time and the assessee was fully justified in making the claim on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd accordingly no penalty was leviable on such a change of opinion. It was also submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) had confirmed the penalty on the ground that the assessee's apportionment did not appear prudent or logical whereas penalty is leviable only when there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and not on the basis of change of opinion. 3.3 The ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dharampal Premchand Ltd. reported in 329 ITR 572 (Del) wherein similar penalty deleted by the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by placing reliance on the apex court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reliance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mirc Electronics Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court had placed reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals vs Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 350 ITR 366 (Bombay) and had arrived at a conclusion that the opinion of the respondent assessee in not allocating any personal expenses of the head office to the eligible units is a possible view and therefore it could not be said that there was any filing of inaccurate particulars and/or concealment of income on the part of the respondent assessee warranting imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Vir....