Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
