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>Tribunal rules penalty cannot be imposed on debatable issues</h1> <h3>Amrita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Ahmedabad</h3> Amrita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Ahmedabad - TMI Issues:Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.Analysis:The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming a penalty of Rs. 38,79,835 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment determined the total income at Rs. 81,35,309, with additions for losses on securities trading and disallowance of interest. The penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) based on these additions. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.The Authorized Representative of the assessee argued that the addition for disallowance of loans had been deleted by the ITAT in a previous order, while the addition for disallowance of interest was confirmed. He contended that the penalty should not be imposed based solely on disallowances and that the interest expenditure was for trading in shares, not as loans. The ITAT noted that the penalty on the deleted addition did not stand, and regarding the interest disallowance, the assessee had provided details and explained the use of funds. The ITAT found that the issue of business need and expediency in advancing funds was debatable, and penalty cannot be imposed on debatable issues. Therefore, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the penalty could not be confirmed solely on the basis of disallowed expenditure.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that penalty cannot be imposed on debatable issues and that the disallowance of expenditure alone does not warrant the levy of a penalty.
TaxTMI 