https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362014 Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the advances were already disclosed in the balance sheet with the original return, negating deliberate concealment, and the TDS-related disallowance was treated as an inadvertent accounting error. The concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities were treated as conclusive in Section 260A review. The court also found that the proposed grounds raised no substantial question of law because they depended on factual appreciation rather than any debatable legal issue. The penalty order therefore did not survive, and the appeal failed. en-us Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:14:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362014 Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the advances were already disclosed in the balance sheet with the original return, negating deliberate concealment, and the TDS-related disallowance was treated as an inadvertent accounting error. The concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities were treated as conclusive in Section 260A review. The court also found that the proposed grounds raised no substantial question of law because they depended on factual appreciation rather than any debatable legal issue. The penalty order therefore did not survive, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362014