https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250020 The case involved cross-appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue challenged the reduction of penalty under section 271(1)(c) from Rs. 50,00,000 to Rs. 5,26,632, seeking restoration of the original penalty. The CIT(A) directed the penalty to be levied on positive income only, not the entire evaded income, relying on legal precedent. The application of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) for penalty calculation was disputed, with the CIT(A) justifying the penalty based on returned income. The judgment also addressed disallowance of lease rent and interest on loans, with the concealment penalty not applicable due to lack of evidence. The restoration of the penalty decision based on a previous Tribunal order for the assessment year 1999-2000 was significant, aligning with the retrospective effect of an amendment to explanation 4. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:39:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250020 The case involved cross-appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue challenged the reduction of penalty under section 271(1)(c) from Rs. 50,00,000 to Rs. 5,26,632, seeking restoration of the original penalty. The CIT(A) directed the penalty to be levied on positive income only, not the entire evaded income, relying on legal precedent. The application of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) for penalty calculation was disputed, with the CIT(A) justifying the penalty based on returned income. The judgment also addressed disallowance of lease rent and interest on loans, with the concealment penalty not applicable due to lack of evidence. The restoration of the penalty decision based on a previous Tribunal order for the assessment year 1999-2000 was significant, aligning with the retrospective effect of an amendment to explanation 4. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250020