<?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>2008 (1) TMI 821 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151141</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the assessee, a liquor contractor/vendor, for concealing income. The Tribunal found no evidence of actual sales suppression by the assessee and deemed their disclosed net profit rate explanation reasonable, despite being unsatisfactory. The proviso to Section 271(1) was considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no legal question arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 11:51:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 821 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151141</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the assessee, a liquor contractor/vendor, for concealing income. The Tribunal found no evidence of actual sales suppression by the assessee and deemed their disclosed net profit rate explanation reasonable, despite being unsatisfactory. The proviso to Section 271(1) was considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no legal question arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>