https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195269 The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It concluded that the claim of expenditure for the purchase of sugarcane was not bonafide and was made to evade tax. The decision highlighted that the increased price was never actually paid to the farmers, indicating an attempt to reduce taxable profits and avoid payment of dues to the exchequer. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:13:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195269 The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It concluded that the claim of expenditure for the purchase of sugarcane was not bonafide and was made to evade tax. The decision highlighted that the increased price was never actually paid to the farmers, indicating an attempt to reduce taxable profits and avoid payment of dues to the exchequer. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195269