https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420435 The Tribunal reviewed the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeal). The Tribunal found that penalties related to suppressed sales and bogus trading liability could not be sustained as subsequent developments accepted the appellant's explanations. The ad hoc disallowance of manufacturing expenses lacked concrete evidence, leading to the vacating of the penalty of &8377; 11,15,482. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the CIT(Appeal) order. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2022 22:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420435 The Tribunal reviewed the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeal). The Tribunal found that penalties related to suppressed sales and bogus trading liability could not be sustained as subsequent developments accepted the appellant's explanations. The ad hoc disallowance of manufacturing expenses lacked concrete evidence, leading to the vacating of the penalty of &8377; 11,15,482. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the CIT(Appeal) order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420435