<?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>1986 (3) TMI 145 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67580</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty for intentional omission in the first year regarding the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose the minor son&#039;s income, rejecting the contention of bona fide belief. However, the penalty for the subsequent year was deleted as claiming incorrect HUF status did not involve concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:13:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 145 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67580</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty for intentional omission in the first year regarding the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose the minor son&#039;s income, rejecting the contention of bona fide belief. However, the penalty for the subsequent year was deleted as claiming incorrect HUF status did not involve concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>