https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180723 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted in this case. The original claim of depreciation on the stenter machine was not fraudulent, as the machine was installed and put to use during the relevant year. The AO's reliance on the revised return after a survey operation was deemed insufficient for penalty imposition. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence for penalty imposition, which was lacking in this case. The decision to cancel the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld, emphasizing the absence of material to support the charge of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:12:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180723 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted in this case. The original claim of depreciation on the stenter machine was not fraudulent, as the machine was installed and put to use during the relevant year. The AO's reliance on the revised return after a survey operation was deemed insufficient for penalty imposition. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence for penalty imposition, which was lacking in this case. The decision to cancel the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld, emphasizing the absence of material to support the charge of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180723