https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267314 The court upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of exemption under Section 54 for construction. The appellant's challenge was rejected as they failed to provide evidence of construction to support their claim, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified. The court emphasized the importance of producing concrete evidence such as bills and vouchers to substantiate claims, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the construction of the immovable asset. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:44:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267314 The court upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of exemption under Section 54 for construction. The appellant's challenge was rejected as they failed to provide evidence of construction to support their claim, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified. The court emphasized the importance of producing concrete evidence such as bills and vouchers to substantiate claims, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the construction of the immovable asset. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267314