Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Max India Ltd Nawanshahr on 2 February, 2017
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Ramendra Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 91 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 02.02.2017
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar.
. . . Appellant
Versus
M/s Max India Ltd.
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The revenue by way of present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), assailed the order dated 27 th October, 2015, passed passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in ITA No.760(ASR)/2013, for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income by making wrong claim of inadmissible legal and professional expenses.
(ii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in not appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge its 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-07-2017 21:58:03 ::: ITA No. 91 of 2016 (O&M) -2- onus to prove that the payment made to its foreign subsidiary Max UK on account of legal and professional expenses was in relation to the services actually rendered wholly and exclusively for the business purposes, as required under the provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.188 of 2013, for the Assessment Year 2003-04 was dismissed on 06th September, 2016. In view thereof, it was submitted that so far as question No.(ii) is concerned, the same would not arise. It was further pointed out that since the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee, equally, question No.(ii) has to be decided against the revenue.
3. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
(RAMENDRA JAIN)
February 02, 2017 JUDGE
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 09-07-2017 21:58:04 :::