Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jalandhar-I Jalandhar v. M/S Max India Ltd Nawanshahr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 111 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 27th October, 2015, passed passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in ITA No.759(ASR)/2013, for the assessment year 2002-03, 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 Jawala Ram 2017.02.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No. 111 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.186 of 2013, for the Assessment Year 2002-03 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 Jawala Ram 2017.02.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh