https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468169 Disallowance of cash purchases under section 40A(3) did not, by itself, justify penalty under section 271(1)(c) where the purchases were not found bogus and the assessee had made a bona fide claim under Rule 6DD(g) that the sellers were villagers without bank accounts. Penalty requires concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and an unsustainable claim alone is insufficient. The penalty orders were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468169 Disallowance of cash purchases under section 40A(3) did not, by itself, justify penalty under section 271(1)(c) where the purchases were not found bogus and the assessee had made a bona fide claim under Rule 6DD(g) that the sellers were villagers without bank accounts. Penalty requires concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and an unsustainable claim alone is insufficient. The penalty orders were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468169