https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765892 ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(b) at 60%. The tribunal held that penalty could only be levied on undisclosed income as defined in the Act, requiring incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was discovered and the additional income offered was merely market adjustments rather than undisclosed income, the penalty was not sustainable. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, concluding that voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation does not constitute discovery of undisclosed income warranting penalty imposition. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:30:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765892 ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(b) at 60%. The tribunal held that penalty could only be levied on undisclosed income as defined in the Act, requiring incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was discovered and the additional income offered was merely market adjustments rather than undisclosed income, the penalty was not sustainable. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, concluding that voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation does not constitute discovery of undisclosed income warranting penalty imposition. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765892