s+271(1)(c)+viz-a-viz+Section+50C
![Where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property. CIT vs Madan Teatres Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 26 (Calcutta) Merely applicability of sec 50C will not prove escapement of Income. ITO vs Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF, Date of Order: ITA No.282/Agra/2013, Date of Order: , ITAT-Agra.](https://www.itrtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/s2711cviz-a-vizSection50C.jpg)
Where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property. CIT vs Madan Teatres Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 26 (Calcutta) Merely applicability of sec 50C will not prove escapement of Income. ITO vs Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF, Date of Order: ITA No.282/Agra/2013, Date of Order: , ITAT-Agra.
ITAT Amritsar: No Section 269SS Violation for One-Time Cash Payment Before Sub-Registrar 
Tax Officials Unleash Digital Dragnet: How New Raid Powers Redefine Privacy, Property Rights in India and likely to Fuel Corruption 
Income Tax Department Rewards for Reporting Tax Evasion: A Comprehensive Guide 
Forfeiture of Gratuity by Employer- What are the Remedies for an employee- Can employer be challenged?