Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Penalty under section 271D was unsustainable because the Tribunal found that the impugned receipts were made through banking channels by cheque on the dates shown, and the lower authorities had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about the transaction year; once cheque receipts were established, no contravention of section 269SS survived. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also not leviable because the loss claim was based on audited accounts and related business expenditure, and mere acceptance of disallowance did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Applying Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted both penalties.
Penalty under section 271D was unsustainable because the Tribunal found that the impugned receipts were made through banking channels by cheque on the dates shown, and the lower authorities had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about the transaction year; once cheque receipts were established, no contravention of section 269SS survived. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also not leviable because the loss claim was based on audited accounts and related business expenditure, and mere acceptance of disallowance did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Applying Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted both penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
