ACIT vs. Mangalam Cement Limited

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Mangalam Cement Limited, the respondent, filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,26,58,910/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for disallowing compensation paid to farmers for acquiring mining rights. The respondent claimed the expenditure as revenue expenditure, which the AO treated as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) allowed the appeal of the respondent and deleted the penalty, which was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appellant, ACIT, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT, Jaipur.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty imposed by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is justified.
• 2. Whether the expenditure incurred by the respondent is revenue or capital in nature.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• BMW Industries Limited Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17Allowed

• Echo Entertainment Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer

  Kolkata bench

• Sanjeev Kumar vs. Central Circle-14

  Delhi bench

• DY. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2011-12Dismissed

• MRS. MANJU DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO,WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

  Jaipur bench

• Shree Krishna Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ benchAY 2012-13Allowed