https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348065 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the disputed capital gain arose from an unrealised consideration under a joint development arrangement and the underlying transaction had already been held not to attract tax. The prior binding decision found that the development agreement did not satisfy section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, so section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act did not apply and no capital gains arose on the unrealised portion. As the taxable gain itself was absent, the foundation for concealment or inaccurate particulars disappeared. The penalty was therefore not exigible and its deletion was upheld. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348065 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the disputed capital gain arose from an unrealised consideration under a joint development arrangement and the underlying transaction had already been held not to attract tax. The prior binding decision found that the development agreement did not satisfy section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, so section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act did not apply and no capital gains arose on the unrealised portion. As the taxable gain itself was absent, the foundation for concealment or inaccurate particulars disappeared. The penalty was therefore not exigible and its deletion was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348065