https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65454 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in part, holding that the penalty imposed was not justifiable based on assessed loss, but also determined that the penalty was not applicable under section 271(1)(c) due to lack of intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal clarified that the judgment in CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. was not relevant post the amendment to the IT Act in 1975, emphasizing that the liability for penalty arises from concealment or inaccuracy regardless of the total income assessed. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65454 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in part, holding that the penalty imposed was not justifiable based on assessed loss, but also determined that the penalty was not applicable under section 271(1)(c) due to lack of intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal clarified that the judgment in CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. was not relevant post the amendment to the IT Act in 1975, emphasizing that the liability for penalty arises from concealment or inaccuracy regardless of the total income assessed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65454