https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37840 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined in the context of revised returns, shifting of income between years, and the assessee's accounting method. The Tribunal found the method of accounting consistent and not mala fide, held that the mental element required for penalty had not been established, and concluded that the assessee had discharged the burden under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). On that material, no useful purpose would be served by directing a reference, and the proposed questions were not required to be referred. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:13:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37840 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined in the context of revised returns, shifting of income between years, and the assessee's accounting method. The Tribunal found the method of accounting consistent and not mala fide, held that the mental element required for penalty had not been established, and concluded that the assessee had discharged the burden under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). On that material, no useful purpose would be served by directing a reference, and the proposed questions were not required to be referred. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37840