https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255629 HC upheld Tribunal's finding that purchases from 33 suppliers were largely bogus and that 25% of the inflated purchase price should be disallowed, rejecting the assessee's plea that Sec.40A(3) and Rule 6DD(j) barred disallowance. However, HC allowed immunity from penalty under s.271(1)(c) Explanation 5(2) because the assessee had paid tax with interest on undisclosed income disclosed under s.132(4), noting no time limit for such payment in Clause (2); penalty levy was therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255629 HC upheld Tribunal's finding that purchases from 33 suppliers were largely bogus and that 25% of the inflated purchase price should be disallowed, rejecting the assessee's plea that Sec.40A(3) and Rule 6DD(j) barred disallowance. However, HC allowed immunity from penalty under s.271(1)(c) Explanation 5(2) because the assessee had paid tax with interest on undisclosed income disclosed under s.132(4), noting no time limit for such payment in Clause (2); penalty levy was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255629