Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5761 to 5780 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.