<?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>1984 (6) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64412</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for income concealment, as the assessee failed to prove the legitimacy of cash credits. Despite a clerical error in citing Explanation 1(A), the penalty was deemed legally justified based on evidence showing the loans were fictitious. The Tribunal affirmed the decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:28:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64412</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for income concealment, as the assessee failed to prove the legitimacy of cash credits. Despite a clerical error in citing Explanation 1(A), the penalty was deemed legally justified based on evidence showing the loans were fictitious. The Tribunal affirmed the decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>