https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34486 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable where the assessee made a full disclosure of the workmen settlement and claimed the employee compensation as revenue expenditure under section 37 on a plausible legal view. The claim involved a dispute only over the correct characterisation of the payment, whether it fell within the voluntary retirement scheme under section 35DDA or was otherwise deductible as business expenditure. As there was no concealment of material particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, a mere difference in legal treatment could not sustain penalty. The cancellation of penalty was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34486 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable where the assessee made a full disclosure of the workmen settlement and claimed the employee compensation as revenue expenditure under section 37 on a plausible legal view. The claim involved a dispute only over the correct characterisation of the payment, whether it fell within the voluntary retirement scheme under section 35DDA or was otherwise deductible as business expenditure. As there was no concealment of material particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, a mere difference in legal treatment could not sustain penalty. The cancellation of penalty was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34486