https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299808 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The discrepancy in the date of purchase for indexation of cost of asset was deemed a genuine mistake rather than intentional misrepresentation, supported by documents filed. The Tribunal considered the error as inadvertent and a difference of opinion, in line with the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., leading to the removal of the penalty. en-us Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:11:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299808 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The discrepancy in the date of purchase for indexation of cost of asset was deemed a genuine mistake rather than intentional misrepresentation, supported by documents filed. The Tribunal considered the error as inadvertent and a difference of opinion, in line with the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., leading to the removal of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299808