Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
