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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 111 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 02.02.2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar. Versus M/s Max India Ltd. . . . Appellant . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocatefor 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.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.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 appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge its 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 06[th] 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