TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of addition made on account of prior period expenses when when CIT(A) himself upheld the action of the AO in respect of the quantum addition? 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of addition made on account of commission expenses when CIT(A) himself upheld the action of the AO in respect of the quantum addition? 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of disallowance of foreign exchange loss when when CIT(A) himse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive CIP Rs. 1,32,43,000/- (ii) Prior year expenses Rs. 12,93,616/- (iii) Liquidated damages Rs. 13,76,37,804/- (iv) Depreciation Rs. 1,08,45,758/- (v) Disallowance u/s.14A Rs. 1,92,02,000/- (vi) Sales Commission expenses Rs. 1,25,96,932/- (vii) Legal and professional fee Rs. 13,78,24,000/- (viii) Foreign exchange fluctuation loss Rs. 11,06,00,000/- Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on 27.03.2015 levying penalty of Rs. 10,55,40,630/-. 3. During the First Appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer in respect of additions made on account of (i) Prior period expenses (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Thus, Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Similarly in respect of the professional expenses, at Page 6, Para 17 of the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in quantum appeal in ITA No.512/PUN/2014 and ITA No.717/PUN/2014 (supra.), this ground was allowed in favour of the assessee by observing as follows: "17.Ground No.7 of the assessee's appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 6.89 crore towards legal and professional fees paid to Baker & Mckinsey LLP and others. This ground is admittedly similar to ground No.7 for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09. Following the view in such earlier years, we allow this ground of appeal." 7. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....H forward contract as the order was cancelled beyond the year ending. On being called upon to explain the reasons for claiming deduction in respect of these items, the assessee contended that loss of Rs. 2.18 crore was on account of MTM exercise and further loss of Rs. 8.88 crore was on account of ineffective hedge for its SABAH order and it was in the nature of provision against MTM loss with respect to forward contract of the said order which was cancelled. The AO took note of the Instruction No.03/2010 providing for not allowing deduction in respect of MTM loss. He further held that the loss of Rs. 8.88 crore was a contingent loss as on the closing date and hence not deductible. The ld. CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o loss of Rs. 8.88 crore, was actually cancelled in April/May of 2009, which falls in the succeeding year. Even though it is an event occurring after the balance sheet date, but it falls in the category of `Non-Adjusting Events', for which the accounts closing before that date are not to be adjusted. Incurring of loss in a succeeding year is something quite different from marking transaction to market rate as at the close of the year. Since the instant loss of Rs. 8.88 crore actually fell upon the assessee in the succeeding year, the same cannot be allowed as deduction in the year under consideration." 10. In these grounds i.e. Ground No.1 and Ground No.3, the assessee had claimed certain expenses and so far the quantum has been conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars." Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Revenue has not doubted the genuinity of the return filed by the assessee and has not said that t....