On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the issue of deduction of write off of security deposit forfeited is not a debatable issue without fully appreciating the judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant, and has accordingly erred in not holding that penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be levied in the instant case where more than one legal view is possible.
Sec. 271(1)(C) of income Tax act, 1961—Penalty— Merely because assessee claimed expenditure as revenue, which was held as capital by the Assessing Officer, penalty for concealment could not be imposed where assessee discloses nature of transaction - Where the issue involved is debatable and not free from doubt, no penalty can be levied - NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2019] 75 ITR (TRIB) 048 (ITAT-DELHI)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the issue of deduction of write off of security deposit forfeited is not a debatable issue without fully appreciating the judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant, and has accordingly erred in not holding that penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be levied in the instant case where more than one legal view is possible.
Sec. 271(1)(C) of income Tax act, 1961—Penalty— Merely because assessee claimed expenditure as revenue, which was held as capital by the Assessing Officer, penalty for concealment could not be imposed where assessee discloses nature of transaction - Where the issue involved is debatable and not free from doubt, no penalty can be levied - NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2019] 75 ITR (TRIB) 048 (ITAT-DELHI)