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>Delhi HC dismisses Revenue's penalty appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, upholding ITAT decision</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi Versus M.S. Shoes East Ltd.</h3> The Delhi HC dismissed the Revenue's penalty appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleted penalty - Held that:- What weighed with the ITAT was that there was no actual concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee. The Assessee was found to have made a few claims which are found not allowable. That, by itself, could not lead to an inference as regards the concealment of income. The view taken by the ITAT based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] is a plausible view to be taken. No substantial question of law. The Delhi High Court dismissed the penalty appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had deleted the penalty, stating that there was no actual concealment of income by the Assessee, as certain claims were found not allowable, but this did not amount to concealment. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
