<?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>1989 (5) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65019</link>
    <description>The appeal by the department was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there was no justification for the penalty as the additions were based on estimates and did not demonstrate concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties cannot be imposed solely on estimates without clear evidence of concealment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:06:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65019</link>
      <description>The appeal by the department was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there was no justification for the penalty as the additions were based on estimates and did not demonstrate concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties cannot be imposed solely on estimates without clear evidence of concealment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>