https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78355 HC partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the AO to reassess penalty afresh. The HC held the reduction of entertainment expense from 50% to 35% was a valuation difference and did not attract penalty for concealment or inaccurate particulars. The claim under section 35D was held to be a false claim (not bona fide) and liable to penalty, as relief under s.35D was inapplicable to the assessee's finance-company status. The capital-loss adjustment was treated as an inadvertent error, and the HC declined to interfere with the factual finding of the authorities below. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78355 HC partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the AO to reassess penalty afresh. The HC held the reduction of entertainment expense from 50% to 35% was a valuation difference and did not attract penalty for concealment or inaccurate particulars. The claim under section 35D was held to be a false claim (not bona fide) and liable to penalty, as relief under s.35D was inapplicable to the assessee's finance-company status. The capital-loss adjustment was treated as an inadvertent error, and the HC declined to interfere with the factual finding of the authorities below. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78355