Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
The assessee is engaged in the business of computer consumables. Assessee’s quantum appeal was admitted by the High Court and was pending adjudication u/s. 260A . The Tribunal cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of the fact that the quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) In the present case, the details of the claim were provided by the assessee. The question whether or not on such details, deduction could be allowed was still in doubt. Such questions had been admitted for determination by the High Court in the appeal filed by the assessee. The mere admission of the appeal by the High Court on the substantial question of law would make it apparent that the additions made were debatable.
ii) There was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty could not be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.”