https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151635 The ITAT Mumbai held that the cancellation of penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified. It was established that Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) applied retrospectively, allowing the penalty to be levied even if concealed income reduced the returned loss. Despite arguments on the merits, the ITAT Mumbai upheld the cancellation of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, following judicial precedents like CIT v. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the significance of legal precedents in penalty imposition cases under section 271(1)(c). en-us Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:58:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151635 The ITAT Mumbai held that the cancellation of penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified. It was established that Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) applied retrospectively, allowing the penalty to be levied even if concealed income reduced the returned loss. Despite arguments on the merits, the ITAT Mumbai upheld the cancellation of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, following judicial precedents like CIT v. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the significance of legal precedents in penalty imposition cases under section 271(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151635