https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194672 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the assessee had disclosed the receipt, claimed exemption under section 54F, and the capital gains arose from a development agreement under which only part consideration was received during the year. The assessee had invested more than the receipt in a residential house, and the view that taxability would arise only on actual receipt was treated as a reasonable belief. In the absence of taxable capital gain for the year, the basis for alleging concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars failed, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194672 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the assessee had disclosed the receipt, claimed exemption under section 54F, and the capital gains arose from a development agreement under which only part consideration was received during the year. The assessee had invested more than the receipt in a residential house, and the view that taxability would arise only on actual receipt was treated as a reasonable belief. In the absence of taxable capital gain for the year, the basis for alleging concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars failed, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194672