TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Taxpayer Wins Penalty Challenge as Income Tax Authorities Fail to Establish Deliberate Tax Evasion Intent</h1> <h3>THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus LIQUID INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.</h3> The HC dismissed the appeal against penalty cancellation under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. Both CIT(A) and ITAT had previously quashed the ... Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - quantum assessment - deduction u/s 14A was a debatable issue - HELD THAT:- The quantum assessment whereunder deduction u/s 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. Thus, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The Delhi High Court, through A.K. Sikri and Reva Khetrapal, JJ., dismissed the appeal challenging the setting aside of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the CIT(A) and ITAT had quashed the penalty on the ground that the deduction issue under Section 14A was a 'debatable issue.' The Court noted that the assessee's appeal under Section 260A on the quantum assessment involving Section 14A deduction was admitted with substantial questions of law framed, reinforcing the debatable nature of the issue. Consequently, the Court held that 'no question of law arises' and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
