https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272332 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the double claim of gratuity payment by the Assessee. Despite acknowledging the inadvertent nature of the claim, the Assessee's failure to provide convincing evidence led to the penalty being confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for concrete proof to refute inaccuracies in income particulars, ultimately dismissing the appeal and citing the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272332 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the double claim of gratuity payment by the Assessee. Despite acknowledging the inadvertent nature of the claim, the Assessee's failure to provide convincing evidence led to the penalty being confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for concrete proof to refute inaccuracies in income particulars, ultimately dismissing the appeal and citing the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272332