https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251483 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the issue of disallowance of foreign education and traveling expenses was debatable and had been admitted as a substantial question of law by the High Court. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty for all the assessment years under consideration, emphasizing that the expenses were incurred for the business purposes of the company and were not personal expenses of the director's son. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the penalty imposed by the AO was deleted. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251483 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the issue of disallowance of foreign education and traveling expenses was debatable and had been admitted as a substantial question of law by the High Court. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty for all the assessment years under consideration, emphasizing that the expenses were incurred for the business purposes of the company and were not personal expenses of the director's son. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the penalty imposed by the AO was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251483