https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394311 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained for bogus purchases, wrong deduction claim under section 80IB, cash payment to an employee, and other undisclosed income because the additions were treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the assessee failed to rebut the statutory presumption with evidence. The Tribunal held that the disputed disallowances were not shown to be merely debatable legal claims or bona fide explanations, so the concealment penalty remained valid. For search-related disclosures, the alternative plea to apply section 271AAA failed because the statutory conditions for the concessional search-penalty regime, including disclosure and substantiation requirements, were not established. The penalty orders were therefore affirmed. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:51:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394311 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained for bogus purchases, wrong deduction claim under section 80IB, cash payment to an employee, and other undisclosed income because the additions were treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the assessee failed to rebut the statutory presumption with evidence. The Tribunal held that the disputed disallowances were not shown to be merely debatable legal claims or bona fide explanations, so the concealment penalty remained valid. For search-related disclosures, the alternative plea to apply section 271AAA failed because the statutory conditions for the concessional search-penalty regime, including disclosure and substantiation requirements, were not established. The penalty orders were therefore affirmed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394311