https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329326 The High Court upheld the cancellation of penalty imposed on disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts, and the claim was made in good faith, without any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on precedent and the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, the Court emphasized the necessity of establishing malafide intent for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). As no such intent was proven, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the cancellation of penalty was upheld. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329326 The High Court upheld the cancellation of penalty imposed on disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts, and the claim was made in good faith, without any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on precedent and the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, the Court emphasized the necessity of establishing malafide intent for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). As no such intent was proven, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the cancellation of penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329326