https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176886 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable where the assessee consistently recognised project income on receipt of occupation certificate, that method had been accepted in earlier assessments, and the relevant project entries were already reflected in the books. The additional income disclosed during search was treated as a bona fide disclosure made to avoid litigation after the Department proposed a different year of taxation. On those facts, Explanation 5A(ii) was found inapplicable because the income was not treated as undisclosed income falling within its scope. The order deleting penalty was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:03:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176886 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable where the assessee consistently recognised project income on receipt of occupation certificate, that method had been accepted in earlier assessments, and the relevant project entries were already reflected in the books. The additional income disclosed during search was treated as a bona fide disclosure made to avoid litigation after the Department proposed a different year of taxation. On those facts, Explanation 5A(ii) was found inapplicable because the income was not treated as undisclosed income falling within its scope. The order deleting penalty was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176886