https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791190 Where the underlying quantum dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the assessee sought withdrawal of the first appeal, the penalty connected with that settled dispute could not be confirmed without first addressing the legal effect of the settlement. The appellate authority's confirmation of penalties under section 271(1)(b) and section 271(1)(c) was therefore found improper, as the withdrawal request and accepted declaration were material facts. The impugned penalty orders were set aside and the assessee's appeals were allowed. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791190 Where the underlying quantum dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the assessee sought withdrawal of the first appeal, the penalty connected with that settled dispute could not be confirmed without first addressing the legal effect of the settlement. The appellate authority's confirmation of penalties under section 271(1)(b) and section 271(1)(c) was therefore found improper, as the withdrawal request and accepted declaration were material facts. The impugned penalty orders were set aside and the assessee's appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791190