<?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 (9) TMI 868 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151664</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it found that the assessee did not intentionally conceal income and had disclosed all relevant facts. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between penalty and quantum proceedings, highlighting the lack of clear evidence of deliberate concealment. It referenced legal precedents to support its decision, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and canceling the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:27:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 868 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151664</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it found that the assessee did not intentionally conceal income and had disclosed all relevant facts. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between penalty and quantum proceedings, highlighting the lack of clear evidence of deliberate concealment. It referenced legal precedents to support its decision, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and canceling the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>