https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207118 The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The addition based on deeming provisions did not automatically attract a penalty, especially when the actual consideration was not in question. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd., resulting in the deletion of the penalty and allowing the assessee's appeal. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207118 The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The addition based on deeming provisions did not automatically attract a penalty, especially when the actual consideration was not in question. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd., resulting in the deletion of the penalty and allowing the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207118