No penalty just because exp. claimed by assessee wasn’t accepted by revenue; SC dismissed
[2018] 97 taxmann.com 279 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Lucknow
v.
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) – Assessment year 1984-85 – High Court by impugned order held that where assessee had furnished certain details regarding expenditure as well as income in return, which were not found inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income on part of assessee, merely because said claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) – It further held that when penalty is being imposed taking into account quantum of additions upheld or accepted, then statute providing limitation will have to be applied strictly in that respect – Whether Special Leave Petition against said impugned order was to be dismissed both on grounds of delay and merits – Held, yes [Para 1] [In favour of assessee]
[button color=”” size=”” type=”round” target=”” link=”https://thetaxtalk.com/”]Home[/button] [button color=”” size=”” type=”round” target=”” link=”https://thetaxtalk.com/submit-article-publish-your-articles-here/”]Submit Article [/button] [button color=”” size=”” type=”round” target=”” link=”https://thetaxtalk.com/discussion-on-tax-problem/”]Discussion[/button]
