https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357104 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2002-03 related to the client deposit account. The Tribunal found that the appellant had adequately shown the amount in question as a liability in the client deposit account and had offered it for taxation in a subsequent year. Emphasizing the burden of proof on the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings and citing legal precedents, including the Reliance Petroproducts case, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unjustified in this instance. en-us Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:03:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357104 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2002-03 related to the client deposit account. The Tribunal found that the appellant had adequately shown the amount in question as a liability in the client deposit account and had offered it for taxation in a subsequent year. Emphasizing the burden of proof on the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings and citing legal precedents, including the Reliance Petroproducts case, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unjustified in this instance. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357104