https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207486 The appeal contested the penalty of Rs.98,79,017/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2000-01, confirmed by the CIT(A) against the termination of an Agency Agreement. The dispute centered on whether the compensation received was for termination or a non-compete clause. The AO imposed the penalty for inaccurate income particulars, considering the compensation taxable under section 28(ii)(c). The assessee argued it was for a non-compete clause, supported by a certificate. The Tribunal's decision on the quantum appeal affected the penalty imposition. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's admission of the appeal indicated a debatable issue. Various precedents supported the assessee's stance against the penalty. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207486 The appeal contested the penalty of Rs.98,79,017/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2000-01, confirmed by the CIT(A) against the termination of an Agency Agreement. The dispute centered on whether the compensation received was for termination or a non-compete clause. The AO imposed the penalty for inaccurate income particulars, considering the compensation taxable under section 28(ii)(c). The assessee argued it was for a non-compete clause, supported by a certificate. The Tribunal's decision on the quantum appeal affected the penalty imposition. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's admission of the appeal indicated a debatable issue. Various precedents supported the assessee's stance against the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207486