https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207388 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the royalty paid to Mrs. Vandana Luthra was an allowable expenditure benefiting franchisees and partnerships, reducing the assessee's income. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars. The argument that the penalty was time-barred under the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 275(1) was rejected, as the penalty order was deemed within the prescribed time limit. Thus, the penalty was upheld in part, allowing the appeal. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207388 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the royalty paid to Mrs. Vandana Luthra was an allowable expenditure benefiting franchisees and partnerships, reducing the assessee's income. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars. The argument that the penalty was time-barred under the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 275(1) was rejected, as the penalty order was deemed within the prescribed time limit. Thus, the penalty was upheld in part, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207388