Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
