Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the disallowance arose from a debatable claim for proportionate amortisation of lease premium and the jurisdictional High Court had already admitted a substantial question of law in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that the claim was bona fide and, following Reliance Petroproducts, mere making of an unsustainable claim did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars absent any finding that the particulars were false or erroneous. On that basis, the penalty for both assessment years was quashed.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the disallowance arose from a debatable claim for proportionate amortisation of lease premium and the jurisdictional High Court had already admitted a substantial question of law in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that the claim was bona fide and, following Reliance Petroproducts, mere making of an unsustainable claim did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars absent any finding that the particulars were false or erroneous. On that basis, the penalty for both assessment years was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
