https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386261 The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act but reduced it to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded from the initial 300% imposed by the assessing officer. The penalty was deemed to be for concealment of income rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars. Non-compliance by the assessee during the penalty proceedings led to a higher penalty, which was ultimately reduced to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded based on the nature of the default and the assessee's occupation. The ITAT's decision was influenced by judicial precedents, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal and a reduced penalty amount. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386261 The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act but reduced it to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded from the initial 300% imposed by the assessing officer. The penalty was deemed to be for concealment of income rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars. Non-compliance by the assessee during the penalty proceedings led to a higher penalty, which was ultimately reduced to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded based on the nature of the default and the assessee's occupation. The ITAT's decision was influenced by judicial precedents, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal and a reduced penalty amount. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386261