https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252649 Where the sale deed and return disclosed the consideration received, and the addition arose only from substitution of a higher deemed value based on stamp valuation and a valuation report, concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not established for penalty purposes. On those peculiar facts, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held unjustified, and the Tribunal's deletion of penalty was sustained. The broader question on the deeming provision was left open for an appropriate case. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:51:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252649 Where the sale deed and return disclosed the consideration received, and the addition arose only from substitution of a higher deemed value based on stamp valuation and a valuation report, concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not established for penalty purposes. On those peculiar facts, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held unjustified, and the Tribunal's deletion of penalty was sustained. The broader question on the deeming provision was left open for an appropriate case. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252649