<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (11) TMI 87 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63641</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee in an income tax assessment case for the year 1974-75. The Tribunal held that the assessee had properly discharged the onus to prove no fraud or neglect in income reporting, leading to the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the assessee regarding past savings and asset details, ultimately ruling that the penalty was not justified based on the overall circumstances of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:03:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 87 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63641</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee in an income tax assessment case for the year 1974-75. The Tribunal held that the assessee had properly discharged the onus to prove no fraud or neglect in income reporting, leading to the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the assessee regarding past savings and asset details, ultimately ruling that the penalty was not justified based on the overall circumstances of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>