https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208887 The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2000-01, except for the amount received from Birla AT&T, which was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for treating a portion of expenses paid to the ROC as revenue based on legal advice. However, the disallowance of expenses paid to AT&T, Singapore under Section 40(a)(i) was upheld, emphasizing the crystallization of the liability during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 40(a)(i). en-us Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208887 The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2000-01, except for the amount received from Birla AT&T, which was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for treating a portion of expenses paid to the ROC as revenue based on legal advice. However, the disallowance of expenses paid to AT&T, Singapore under Section 40(a)(i) was upheld, emphasizing the crystallization of the liability during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 40(a)(i). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208887