https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213541 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee's section 54 exemption claim rested on an unregistered iqrarnama whose genuineness was not proved. The seller was not produced, the alleged cash transaction was unsupported, and the document was later cancelled. The earlier quantum finding had already recorded that the iqrarnama was unauthenticated and that there was no material to show possession of the residential house so as to attract section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On these facts, the claim was treated as a false claim with inaccurate particulars, and Reliance Petroproducts was held inapplicable. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213541 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee's section 54 exemption claim rested on an unregistered iqrarnama whose genuineness was not proved. The seller was not produced, the alleged cash transaction was unsupported, and the document was later cancelled. The earlier quantum finding had already recorded that the iqrarnama was unauthenticated and that there was no material to show possession of the residential house so as to attract section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On these facts, the claim was treated as a false claim with inaccurate particulars, and Reliance Petroproducts was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213541