<?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>1985 (10) TMI 139 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67093</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeals against the cancellation of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1965-66 and 1970-71 were dismissed. The Appellate Authority held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not part of the assessment process and concealment of income was not proven. The Supreme Court decision cited by the Revenue did not support their argument. The Income Tax Officer did not indicate penalty proceedings in the assessment order, indicating a lack of satisfaction during assessment. The penalty orders lacked essential facts supporting the concealment charge, leading to the conclusion that the case for penalty imposition was not established. The CIT(A) correctly canceled the penalties due to lack of satisfaction during assessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:38:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 139 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67093</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeals against the cancellation of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1965-66 and 1970-71 were dismissed. The Appellate Authority held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not part of the assessment process and concealment of income was not proven. The Supreme Court decision cited by the Revenue did not support their argument. The Income Tax Officer did not indicate penalty proceedings in the assessment order, indicating a lack of satisfaction during assessment. The penalty orders lacked essential facts supporting the concealment charge, leading to the conclusion that the case for penalty imposition was not established. The CIT(A) correctly canceled the penalties due to lack of satisfaction during assessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>