https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441734 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It emphasized the assessee's bona fide belief that advances received did not constitute turnover until project completion, aligning with the principles in Exque Finmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT. The Tribunal found no deliberate non-compliance and referenced the Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa judgment, stating penalties should not apply in cases of genuine belief. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the assessee's appeal was successful. en-us Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441734 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It emphasized the assessee's bona fide belief that advances received did not constitute turnover until project completion, aligning with the principles in Exque Finmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT. The Tribunal found no deliberate non-compliance and referenced the Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa judgment, stating penalties should not apply in cases of genuine belief. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the assessee's appeal was successful. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441734