WIDEANGLE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 63/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 March 2024AY 2006-07Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the difference in opinion regarding the classification of expenditure as revenue or capital does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 7,00,000/- for membership of OTC Exchange of India as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether a difference of opinion regarding the classification of expenditure as revenue or capital justifies the levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →