<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Concealment penalty depends on intention, and a conscious false exemption claim sustains penalty despite a claimed computation error.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98659</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) turns on the assessee&#039;s intention: an inadvertent or unintentional omission does not attract penalty, but a conscious non-disclosure or false exemption claim constitutes concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the facts, the assessee had paid advance tax on the capital gains yet claimed exemption in the return and sought a refund, which the Court treated as a deliberate attempt to avoid tax discovered on scrutiny. The explanation of a typographical error in the Chartered Accountant&#039;s computation was rejected, and the cited advance ruling was held inapplicable on its different facts. The Tribunal&#039;s restoration of penalty was upheld and the appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Concealment penalty depends on intention, and a conscious false exemption claim sustains penalty despite a claimed computation error.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98659</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) turns on the assessee&#039;s intention: an inadvertent or unintentional omission does not attract penalty, but a conscious non-disclosure or false exemption claim constitutes concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the facts, the assessee had paid advance tax on the capital gains yet claimed exemption in the return and sought a refund, which the Court treated as a deliberate attempt to avoid tax discovered on scrutiny. The explanation of a typographical error in the Chartered Accountant&#039;s computation was rejected, and the cited advance ruling was held inapplicable on its different facts. The Tribunal&#039;s restoration of penalty was upheld and the appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>