Habeas corpus challenge to arrest safeguards remains maintainable, but substantial compliance with reasons-to-believe requirement defeats the petition...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the related interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, because the basis for the penalty no longer existed. On the subsidy issue, the Tribunal treated the capital-versus-revenue characterisation of the grant as a debatable question and held that such a disputed classification did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the related interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, because the basis for the penalty no longer existed. On the subsidy issue, the Tribunal treated the capital-versus-revenue characterisation of the grant as a debatable question and held that such a disputed classification did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
