https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78356 HC held that the Tribunal erred in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a bogus commission claim. It found that the assessee's claim of commission purportedly paid to an intermediary was ex facie bogus, as no services were rendered, a fact conclusively established in the quantum proceedings. Partial allowance of commission relating to another entity did not validate the bogus portion. HC emphasized that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability based on strict liability; wilful concealment is not essential. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the penalty imposed by the tax authorities was upheld. en-us Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78356 HC held that the Tribunal erred in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a bogus commission claim. It found that the assessee's claim of commission purportedly paid to an intermediary was ex facie bogus, as no services were rendered, a fact conclusively established in the quantum proceedings. Partial allowance of commission relating to another entity did not validate the bogus portion. HC emphasized that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability based on strict liability; wilful concealment is not essential. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the penalty imposed by the tax authorities was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78356