<?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>1977 (4) TMI 60 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65675</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It found no evidence of deliberate concealment of income by the film producer firm, noting discrepancies in the penalty initiation for inaccurate particulars rather than concealment. The Tribunal held that inaccuracies in particulars did not warrant penalty imposition, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and canceling the penalty based on lack of evidence and technical invalidity of the penalty order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:46:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 60 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65675</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It found no evidence of deliberate concealment of income by the film producer firm, noting discrepancies in the penalty initiation for inaccurate particulars rather than concealment. The Tribunal held that inaccuracies in particulars did not warrant penalty imposition, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and canceling the penalty based on lack of evidence and technical invalidity of the penalty order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>