Mere Rejection of section 35D claim not amounts to Concealment of Income

DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of expenses made u/s.35D?

ITAT states that, the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by Ld.AO in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Agro Cargo Transport Ltd. V/s CIT. ITAT find that this issue was debatable one and the mere rejection of assessee’s cl

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.