https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341487 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the underlying capital gains addition arising from the joint development arrangement had already been decided in favour of the assessee. The stated reasoning is that, when the quantum addition no longer subsists, the basis for alleging concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars also falls away. In that situation, the penalty cannot stand independently of the quantum determination, and the revenue's challenge fails. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:24:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341487 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the underlying capital gains addition arising from the joint development arrangement had already been decided in favour of the assessee. The stated reasoning is that, when the quantum addition no longer subsists, the basis for alleging concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars also falls away. In that situation, the penalty cannot stand independently of the quantum determination, and the revenue's challenge fails. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341487