<?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>1991 (2) TMI 216 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71798</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty for alleged concealment of income was not justified. The tribunal emphasized that the assessee disclosed all material facts and justified the deduction claim based on facts, which should not attract a penalty for concealment. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the factual circumstances surrounding the commission payment and the formation of the new firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:33:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 216 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71798</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty for alleged concealment of income was not justified. The tribunal emphasized that the assessee disclosed all material facts and justified the deduction claim based on facts, which should not attract a penalty for concealment. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the factual circumstances surrounding the commission payment and the formation of the new firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>