https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338621 The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2002-03. The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct did not warrant penalty imposition, emphasizing that penalties should be imposed only in cases of deliberate defiance or conscious disregard of obligations. Relying on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income should be deleted due to lack of conclusive proof. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:03:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338621 The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2002-03. The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct did not warrant penalty imposition, emphasizing that penalties should be imposed only in cases of deliberate defiance or conscious disregard of obligations. Relying on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income should be deleted due to lack of conclusive proof. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338621