https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91266 The ITAT held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee's interpretation of having no fixed place PE in India was not accepted, as the issue was debatable and pending before the High Court. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and acted on a bona fide belief supported by judicial precedents. Since penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is not established, the penalty imposed for AY 2011-12 and subsequent years 2012-13 to 2016-17 was deleted. The AO was directed to rescind the penalty, affirming that a disputed legal question does not warrant penalty in absence of deliberate concealment or misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed accordingly. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:28 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91266 The ITAT held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee's interpretation of having no fixed place PE in India was not accepted, as the issue was debatable and pending before the High Court. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and acted on a bona fide belief supported by judicial precedents. Since penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is not established, the penalty imposed for AY 2011-12 and subsequent years 2012-13 to 2016-17 was deleted. The AO was directed to rescind the penalty, affirming that a disputed legal question does not warrant penalty in absence of deliberate concealment or misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed accordingly. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91266