https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470718 Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was not leviable where genuine statutory liabilities were claimed as revenue expenditure and the dispute concerned only the timing or manner of deduction. The expenses, including labour, provident fund, ESIC, electricity and land-compensation dues connected with acquired land, were not alleged to be false, bogus, or misrepresented. They remained allowable either through stock-in-trade on sale or as capital expenditure on sale of the capital asset. As the controversy concerned allowability timing rather than concealment or inaccurate particulars, Section 271(1)(c) penalty did not apply. en-us Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Aug 2026 15:39:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470718 Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was not leviable where genuine statutory liabilities were claimed as revenue expenditure and the dispute concerned only the timing or manner of deduction. The expenses, including labour, provident fund, ESIC, electricity and land-compensation dues connected with acquired land, were not alleged to be false, bogus, or misrepresented. They remained allowable either through stock-in-trade on sale or as capital expenditure on sale of the capital asset. As the controversy concerned allowability timing rather than concealment or inaccurate particulars, Section 271(1)(c) penalty did not apply. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470718