https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22015 The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, linking it to a different concealed income amount than the one determined by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, directing that the penalty should align with the actual concealed income amount, as per the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. India Sea Foods [1976] 105 ITR 708. The judgment emphasized that penalties should be based on the specific amount of concealed income, not the total income assessed, in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:06:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22015 The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, linking it to a different concealed income amount than the one determined by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, directing that the penalty should align with the actual concealed income amount, as per the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. India Sea Foods [1976] 105 ITR 708. The judgment emphasized that penalties should be based on the specific amount of concealed income, not the total income assessed, in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22015