https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27399 The court ruled in favor of the assessee in three Wealth-tax References for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. It emphasized the burden on the Revenue to prove the falsity of the assessee's explanation under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, aligning with the Full Bench's ruling in Vishwakarma Industries, and highlighted the importance of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment underscored the need for the Revenue to substantiate falsity when the assessee's explanation is deemed plausible, emphasizing burden of proof dynamics in penalty proceedings. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:23:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27399 The court ruled in favor of the assessee in three Wealth-tax References for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. It emphasized the burden on the Revenue to prove the falsity of the assessee's explanation under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, aligning with the Full Bench's ruling in Vishwakarma Industries, and highlighted the importance of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment underscored the need for the Revenue to substantiate falsity when the assessee's explanation is deemed plausible, emphasizing burden of proof dynamics in penalty proceedings. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Thu, 12 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27399