Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was exigible where the assessee claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) on the basis of a bona fide and fully disclosed interpretation of the provision.
Analysis: The assessee had made the deduction claim after seeking clarification from the revenue authorities, obtaining legal opinion, and making complete disclosure in the return. The claim was founded on an arguable interpretation of section 36(1)(viii), and the later amendment to that provision supported the view that the assessee's understanding was not a sham or pretence. For penalty under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), the explanation must be shown to be not bona fide or unsupported by full disclosure. On the facts, the assessee's conduct satisfied the requirement of bona fides and disclosure, and mere rejection of the quantum claim did not justify penalty.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee makes a claim on a plausible interpretation of the law, supported by bona fide belief and full disclosure of material facts, penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be imposed merely because the claim is ultimately disallowed.