https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18999 The court held that the penalty was exigible under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act as the assessee had concealed income from the sale of property. It was found that there was no valid reference by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, rendering the penalty imposition invalid. The court determined that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to levy the penalty. Additionally, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the computation of capital gains under section 80T and section 48 but disagreed with the Tribunal's ruling on the set-off of capital loss. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on certain legal questions, while declining to answer others. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18999 The court held that the penalty was exigible under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act as the assessee had concealed income from the sale of property. It was found that there was no valid reference by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, rendering the penalty imposition invalid. The court determined that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to levy the penalty. Additionally, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the computation of capital gains under section 80T and section 48 but disagreed with the Tribunal's ruling on the set-off of capital loss. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on certain legal questions, while declining to answer others. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18999