https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216095 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable where the assessee had disclosed the relevant particulars and the disallowance of management fee did not, by itself, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessment dispute related to allowability of the expenditure, not penalty liability, so the penalty was deleted. Non-competition fee paid to restrain rivalry for a limited period was held to be revenue expenditure under section 37(1) because it facilitated business operations without creating a capital asset or enduring advantage. The deduction was therefore allowable, and the assessee succeeded on both issues. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216095 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable where the assessee had disclosed the relevant particulars and the disallowance of management fee did not, by itself, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessment dispute related to allowability of the expenditure, not penalty liability, so the penalty was deleted. Non-competition fee paid to restrain rivalry for a limited period was held to be revenue expenditure under section 37(1) because it facilitated business operations without creating a capital asset or enduring advantage. The deduction was therefore allowable, and the assessee succeeded on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216095