https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362760 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. It found the assessee's claim of agricultural income to be fraudulent and aimed at tax evasion. The Tribunal held that the assessee used a "colorable device" to disguise business income as agricultural income, supporting the penalty imposition. The oral plea challenging the penalty notice under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules was rejected due to procedural shortcomings. en-us Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362760 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. It found the assessee's claim of agricultural income to be fraudulent and aimed at tax evasion. The Tribunal held that the assessee used a "colorable device" to disguise business income as agricultural income, supporting the penalty imposition. The oral plea challenging the penalty notice under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules was rejected due to procedural shortcomings. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362760