https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15902 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee on questions 1 and 2. It was determined that the IAC had jurisdiction to continue penalty proceedings post the Amendment Act, and there was no fraud or wilful neglect by the assessee warranting the penalty. The induction of another firm as an intermediary was not deemed an attempt to conceal profits, and the disallowance of expenditure alone did not constitute fraud. No costs were awarded due to the assessee being unrepresented. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:11:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15902 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee on questions 1 and 2. It was determined that the IAC had jurisdiction to continue penalty proceedings post the Amendment Act, and there was no fraud or wilful neglect by the assessee warranting the penalty. The induction of another firm as an intermediary was not deemed an attempt to conceal profits, and the disallowance of expenditure alone did not constitute fraud. No costs were awarded due to the assessee being unrepresented. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15902