https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347125 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of clarity in penalty proceedings and distinguished between concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Due to discrepancies in property valuation and lack of concrete evidence, the court found the appellant not liable for the penalty, citing legal precedents. The penalty was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed based on the judgment's findings and reasoning. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347125 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of clarity in penalty proceedings and distinguished between concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Due to discrepancies in property valuation and lack of concrete evidence, the court found the appellant not liable for the penalty, citing legal precedents. The penalty was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed based on the judgment's findings and reasoning. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347125