https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78988 The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The assessing officer initially alleged 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under 271(1)(c) but later changed the basis for penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid as the AO's satisfaction for penalty imposition was not consistent, citing precedents like New Sorathia Engineering and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works. The Tribunal ruled that when the AO confirms penalty on a different ground than the original satisfaction under 271(1B), the penalty under 271(1)(c) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:32:23 +0530 Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:32:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78988 The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The assessing officer initially alleged 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under 271(1)(c) but later changed the basis for penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid as the AO's satisfaction for penalty imposition was not consistent, citing precedents like New Sorathia Engineering and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works. The Tribunal ruled that when the AO confirms penalty on a different ground than the original satisfaction under 271(1B), the penalty under 271(1)(c) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:32:23 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78988