https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331528 The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted in both issues by the ld. CIT(A) in the case. The first issue involved bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia), where the penalty was deemed unsustainable due to the debatable nature of the claim. The second issue pertained to the disallowance of contribution to the gratuity fund, with the penalty being deleted as the claim was genuine and not an attempt to conceal income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between quantum additions and penalty proceedings based on genuine explanations and disclosures. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:27:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331528 The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted in both issues by the ld. CIT(A) in the case. The first issue involved bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia), where the penalty was deemed unsustainable due to the debatable nature of the claim. The second issue pertained to the disallowance of contribution to the gratuity fund, with the penalty being deleted as the claim was genuine and not an attempt to conceal income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between quantum additions and penalty proceedings based on genuine explanations and disclosures. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331528