https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335125 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of sub-brokerage payment. The ITAT found that the assessee substantiated the genuineness of transactions with sub-brokers through relevant documents and bank statements, while the Revenue failed to provide evidence of collusion or tax evasion. Emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and proper examination, the ITAT deemed the penalty unwarranted, ultimately allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee. en-us Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Nov 2016 10:31:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335125 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of sub-brokerage payment. The ITAT found that the assessee substantiated the genuineness of transactions with sub-brokers through relevant documents and bank statements, while the Revenue failed to provide evidence of collusion or tax evasion. Emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and proper examination, the ITAT deemed the penalty unwarranted, ultimately allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335125