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 HC allowed assessee's appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed deduction for crystallized liability towards additional bonus, which was subsequently disallowed under Section 43B as payment was made in the following accounting year. The court held that neither concealment of income particulars nor furnishing inaccurate particulars were established. The assessee's claim was bona fide and plausible, based on crystallized future liability, not a false statement. The disallowance was due to timing provisions under Section 43B, not mala fide concealment. The court distinguished this from cases involving false claims, emphasizing that raising a legally plausible claim, even if ultimately unsustainable, cannot attract penalty provisions. Essential ingredients of Section 271(1)(c) were not satisfied.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
