https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345847 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the disputed amount was not taxable as capital gains on the facts already covered by the earlier ruling on the same development-agreement transaction. The Court applied its prior reasoning that, without a registered agreement meeting the requirements of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act did not treat the entire consideration as accrued or taxable in the relevant year. As no capital gains were exigible on the unrealized amount, the basis for alleging concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was absent. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345847 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the disputed amount was not taxable as capital gains on the facts already covered by the earlier ruling on the same development-agreement transaction. The Court applied its prior reasoning that, without a registered agreement meeting the requirements of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act did not treat the entire consideration as accrued or taxable in the relevant year. As no capital gains were exigible on the unrealized amount, the basis for alleging concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was absent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345847