TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. ITO [ 2014 (7) TMI 1150 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 851 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Pinto For the Respondent : Mr. J. D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Madhur Agarwal and Mr. A.K. Jasani ORDER P.C. This Appeal under Section 260A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the High Court warrants the cancellation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), whereas an admission of a question of law, does not amount to a decision as per Section 260A of the Act? . 3. The Assessing Officer had imposed penalty upon the Respondent Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The basis of the penalty was the order passed in quantum proceedings. 4. In appeal, the Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs (supra) deleting penalty, was a subject matter of Revenue's appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 415 of 2012. This Court by an order dated 8th July, 2014 dismissed the Revenue's appeal, inter alia, holding that where an issue is debatable/ arguable, no occasion to impose penalty can arise and the fact that the appeal in quantum proceedings had been admitted, was evidence enough of the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
