https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68155 The Tribunal partly allowed the assessment appeals by Revenue, dismissing penalty appeals under sections 271(1)(a) and 273. The additions for unexplained investment and disallowances of certain expenses were deleted, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal emphasized discrepancies in valuation methods for construction costs and the inapplicability of wealth-tax assessments to income-tax determinations. Penalties for late filing and unanticipated additions were cancelled, as confirmed by subsequent deletions. The subsidy received was not deducted from asset costs based on a High Court directive, as it was not asset-specific. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:13:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68155 The Tribunal partly allowed the assessment appeals by Revenue, dismissing penalty appeals under sections 271(1)(a) and 273. The additions for unexplained investment and disallowances of certain expenses were deleted, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal emphasized discrepancies in valuation methods for construction costs and the inapplicability of wealth-tax assessments to income-tax determinations. Penalties for late filing and unanticipated additions were cancelled, as confirmed by subsequent deletions. The subsidy received was not deducted from asset costs based on a High Court directive, as it was not asset-specific. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68155