TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>High Court upholds penalty appeal under IT Act for AY 2004-05, citing good faith, legal advice.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus AMAR NATH</h3> The High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2004-05. The Court found that ... - Issues Involved:The appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2004-05.Summary:The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 16,720, claiming profit on the sale of shares exempt under s. 10(36) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, leading to penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Revenue further appealed to the High Court.Upon review, it was found that the assessee acted on the advice of his counsel in claiming the deduction under s. 10(36) of the IT Act. The counsel admitted to advising the assessee on the deduction. The High Court cited precedent stating that a litigant should not suffer for the mistake of their counsel. The assessee had provided all details related to the capital gains, indicating no intention to conceal income. While the claim was incorrect, it was made in good faith based on legal advice. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct, as there was no error in the order. It was held that no question of law arose for determination, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
