https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762791 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely for change of head of income from capital receipt to business income regarding compensation received on termination of agency rights. Following Bombay HC precedents in Bennett Coleman and Procter Gamble cases, the tribunal ruled that penalty requires proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars, not just reclassification of income heads. Penalty deleted for all disputed additions including insurance claims, section 35 disallowances, and depreciation issues. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Dec 2024 10:02:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762791 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely for change of head of income from capital receipt to business income regarding compensation received on termination of agency rights. Following Bombay HC precedents in Bennett Coleman and Procter Gamble cases, the tribunal ruled that penalty requires proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars, not just reclassification of income heads. Penalty deleted for all disputed additions including insurance claims, section 35 disallowances, and depreciation issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762791