Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee company failed to provide bonafide explanation for inflated expenses claimed in revised return, contrary to audited financials. Disallowance falls under Explanation 1 r.w. Explanation 4 of Section 271(1)(c). Assessee cannot correct claim through letter, must file revised return as per Goetze (India) Ltd. Mere disclosure in forms/reports doesn't preclude penalty for wrongful claim. Penalty rightly imposed for inflated expenses in revised return. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not attracted for delayed deposit of employees' contribution, allowable based on prevailing judgments favoring assessee. Penalty u/s 270A - Misreporting not established for delayed contribution, assessee's claim supported by Alom Extrusions. Penalty u/s 270A vacated. No penalty for increase in book profit disclosed in revised return and determined by AO u/s 144.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
