https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206556 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held leviable where the assessee failed to disclose capital gains arising from transfer of development rights and described receipt as an advance despite handing over possession and receiving part consideration, bringing the transaction within section 2(47)(v). The Tribunal found that the explanation of bona fide belief was not substantiated because the relevant law was clear, later legal opinions were obtained only after departmental action, and the material facts were not truly and fully disclosed. Under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), such failure gives rise to deemed concealment, so acceptance of the underlying assessment addition did not prevent penalty. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206556 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held leviable where the assessee failed to disclose capital gains arising from transfer of development rights and described receipt as an advance despite handing over possession and receiving part consideration, bringing the transaction within section 2(47)(v). The Tribunal found that the explanation of bona fide belief was not substantiated because the relevant law was clear, later legal opinions were obtained only after departmental action, and the material facts were not truly and fully disclosed. Under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), such failure gives rise to deemed concealment, so acceptance of the underlying assessment addition did not prevent penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206556