Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the assessee had disclosed all particulars in the return and the claim was only disallowed as a matter of law. Applying CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the ITAT held that concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is required for penalty, and a mere unsustainable claim for document and stamp charges related to increase in authorised share capital does not meet that test. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the assessee had disclosed all particulars in the return and the claim was only disallowed as a matter of law. Applying CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the ITAT held that concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is required for penalty, and a mere unsustainable claim for document and stamp charges related to increase in authorised share capital does not meet that test. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
