https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411383 The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the income from the sale of hybrid seeds did not qualify as agricultural income, penalties were valid for concealing income particulars, and the issue was not debatable but a deliberate attempt to evade taxes. The Tribunal emphasized the penalties were justified under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, reinstating them and allowing both appeals of the Revenue. en-us Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:15:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411383 The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the income from the sale of hybrid seeds did not qualify as agricultural income, penalties were valid for concealing income particulars, and the issue was not debatable but a deliberate attempt to evade taxes. The Tribunal emphasized the penalties were justified under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, reinstating them and allowing both appeals of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411383