https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409993 The penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was challenged by the appellant, who argued that it was unjustified and excessive. The appellant contended that the disallowance of a claimed expenditure as capital instead of revenue did not warrant the penalty. The court found that the penalty was not justified as the expenditure was genuinely claimed, and there was no evidence of contumacious conduct. Relying on the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the court held that the penalty was not leviable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed with the penalty being deleted. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409993 The penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was challenged by the appellant, who argued that it was unjustified and excessive. The appellant contended that the disallowance of a claimed expenditure as capital instead of revenue did not warrant the penalty. The court found that the penalty was not justified as the expenditure was genuinely claimed, and there was no evidence of contumacious conduct. Relying on the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the court held that the penalty was not leviable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed with the penalty being deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409993