https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376968 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive where the quantum additions for professional fees and brand ambassador income had already been deleted, because the foundation for concealment penalty ceased to exist. The article also notes that penalty was not leviable on deemed rental income from a Dubai villa, as the taxability question under the DTAA was debatable and a debatable legal issue does not attract concealment penalty. The revenue's appeal therefore failed, and the penalty was deleted on both grounds. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:39:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376968 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive where the quantum additions for professional fees and brand ambassador income had already been deleted, because the foundation for concealment penalty ceased to exist. The article also notes that penalty was not leviable on deemed rental income from a Dubai villa, as the taxability question under the DTAA was debatable and a debatable legal issue does not attract concealment penalty. The revenue's appeal therefore failed, and the penalty was deleted on both grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376968