1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal Upholds CIT (A) Order Canceling Penalty</h1> The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the ... - Issues involved: The issue involves the confirmation of the order passed by the CIT (A) canceling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 11,37,949 by the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition, which stood confirmed.Summary:The Tribunal, in paragraph 5 of its order, analyzed the matter comprehensively. It acknowledged that the assessee disclosed the claim of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) and had provided explanations for the same. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously claimed the deduction, which was allowed by the CIT (A) and later restored by the ITAT. The Tribunal emphasized that the disallowance of interest did not imply concealment of income or inaccurate particulars by the assessee. It highlighted that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the falsity of the explanation offered by the assessee, which was not substantiated. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a decision stating that a claim admitted by the High Court as a substantial question of law cannot be considered frivolous or mala fide for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Ultimately, both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal concluded that it was not a suitable case for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.