https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22826 HC held that non-furnishing of information under section 133(4) does not mandate disallowance of commission; the statutory consequence lies in penalty under section 272A(2)(a), not denial of deduction. Upholding the Tribunal's finding as one of fact, the HC accepted that the impugned payments were proved and incurred wholly and exclusively for business, despite non-disclosure of recipients' identities. The HC further ruled that the amount lying in a foreign bank, representing sale proceeds of stock-in-trade, was a trade debt validly written off as bad in the relevant year. Both questions were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22826 HC held that non-furnishing of information under section 133(4) does not mandate disallowance of commission; the statutory consequence lies in penalty under section 272A(2)(a), not denial of deduction. Upholding the Tribunal's finding as one of fact, the HC accepted that the impugned payments were proved and incurred wholly and exclusively for business, despite non-disclosure of recipients' identities. The HC further ruled that the amount lying in a foreign bank, representing sale proceeds of stock-in-trade, was a trade debt validly written off as bad in the relevant year. Both questions were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22826