https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213511 The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming inadmissible bad debts. The CIT(A) and Tribunal found that the advances were not for business purposes and lacked commercial expediency, leading to the conclusion that the claim was patently wrong and inadmissible. Despite the assessee's arguments, the penalty was upheld, emphasizing that a claim without basis warrants penalty, as seen in the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213511 The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming inadmissible bad debts. The CIT(A) and Tribunal found that the advances were not for business purposes and lacked commercial expediency, leading to the conclusion that the claim was patently wrong and inadmissible. Despite the assessee's arguments, the penalty was upheld, emphasizing that a claim without basis warrants penalty, as seen in the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213511