Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5081 to 5100 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 270A was unsustainable where the disputed claims related only to the allowability of expenditure already incurred. The Tribunal noted that loan processing charges and stamp duty were not denied as expenses, but were treated by the AO as capital in nature, and the preliminary expenses claim under section 35D failed only on eligibility. Because the issue was a debatable disallowance of deduction and there was no wilful furnishing of inaccurate particulars, under-reporting or misreporting was not made out. The penalty confirmed in appeal was deleted.
Penalty under section 270A was unsustainable where the disputed claims related only to the allowability of expenditure already incurred. The Tribunal noted that loan processing charges and stamp duty were not denied as expenses, but were treated by the AO as capital in nature, and the preliminary expenses claim under section 35D failed only on eligibility. Because the issue was a debatable disallowance of deduction and there was no wilful furnishing of inaccurate particulars, under-reporting or misreporting was not made out. The penalty confirmed in appeal was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
