https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173086 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the assessee had disclosed the primary facts and the dispute arose only from accounting or disallowance issues without proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars. An adjustment to closing stock under section 145A and excise duty treatment did not justify penalty because it concerned the valuation method, not suppression of income. Penalty was also deleted for foreign travel expenses since the claim was fully disclosed and disallowed only on the ground of lack of acceptance. For old sundry creditors, the addition on assessment could stand, but penalty still failed because the record did not establish bogus liabilities or concealment. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2015 10:12:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173086 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the assessee had disclosed the primary facts and the dispute arose only from accounting or disallowance issues without proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars. An adjustment to closing stock under section 145A and excise duty treatment did not justify penalty because it concerned the valuation method, not suppression of income. Penalty was also deleted for foreign travel expenses since the claim was fully disclosed and disallowed only on the ground of lack of acceptance. For old sundry creditors, the addition on assessment could stand, but penalty still failed because the record did not establish bogus liabilities or concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173086