https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62772 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. It determined that the assessee's treatment of Rs. 3 crores as a security deposit was based on a bona fide interpretation of the MOU with DMIL. The Tribunal found that the assessee disclosed all relevant particulars and did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalty for concealing income was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62772 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. It determined that the assessee's treatment of Rs. 3 crores as a security deposit was based on a bona fide interpretation of the MOU with DMIL. The Tribunal found that the assessee disclosed all relevant particulars and did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalty for concealing income was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62772