https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380769 The appellant challenged the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, alleging lack of proper adjudication and supporting evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty for concealment of income, but the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the penalty as the quantum order was non-existent, rendering the penalty baseless. en-us Wed, 22 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2019 08:08:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380769 The appellant challenged the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, alleging lack of proper adjudication and supporting evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty for concealment of income, but the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the penalty as the quantum order was non-existent, rendering the penalty baseless. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380769