Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
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 4824 
Join Channel 
