| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0219 (SC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,
Section 261 Section 27(1)(c)
Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. [Tax Case No. 1243 of 2008, dt. 10-10-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6890 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that at the relevant point of time, there were two interpretations which were possible with regard to the deduction, which could be claimed under section 80-IA(4)(iv). Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee's case could not be brought within the ambit of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars with deliberate intention to avoid payment of tax, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Incorrect claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv) - Penalty under section 271(1)(c)
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. [Tax Case No. 1243 of 2008, dt. 10-10-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6890 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that at the relevant point of time, there were two interpretations which were possible with regard to the deduction, which could be claimed under section 80-IA(4)(iv). Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee's case could not be brought within the ambit of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars with deliberate intention, to avoid payment of tax. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|