<?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>2009 (8) TMI 128 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64873</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, dismissing the assessee&#039;s appeals. It confirmed that the penalties were justified as the income was concealed in the original returns and only disclosed later in response to notices. The Tribunal emphasized strict construction of penalty provisions and found the penalties valid based on the detection of concealed income during the search, despite the controversy over the applicability of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 128 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64873</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, dismissing the assessee&#039;s appeals. It confirmed that the penalties were justified as the income was concealed in the original returns and only disclosed later in response to notices. The Tribunal emphasized strict construction of penalty provisions and found the penalties valid based on the detection of concealed income during the search, despite the controversy over the applicability of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>