<?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>2005 (10) TMI 439 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118746</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income was not justified as the surrender by the assessee was voluntary, with no deliberate concealment involved. The burden of proof shifted to the assessee post-amendment, and the explanation provided was considered bona fide, leading to the deletion of the penalty amount of Rs. 4,82,560. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:33:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 439 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118746</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income was not justified as the surrender by the assessee was voluntary, with no deliberate concealment involved. The burden of proof shifted to the assessee post-amendment, and the explanation provided was considered bona fide, leading to the deletion of the penalty amount of Rs. 4,82,560. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>