https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332730 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the appellant had disclosed all relevant details, and the disagreement on the nature of capital gains did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 6,93,053 was deleted, and the appeal was allowed, aligning with the principle that making a wrong claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, as per the Supreme Court's precedent in CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332730 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the appellant had disclosed all relevant details, and the disagreement on the nature of capital gains did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 6,93,053 was deleted, and the appeal was allowed, aligning with the principle that making a wrong claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, as per the Supreme Court's precedent in CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332730