<?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>2000 (7) TMI 918 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest on unsecured loans to a sister concern for assessment years 1987-88 and 1989-90. It confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and emphasized that changing the accounting method was not compliant with tax laws. The Tribunal dismissed the penalty imposition, noting the absence of concealment of income or submission of inaccurate particulars. The penalty order for 1987-88 lacked proper justification, and the change in accounting method was considered genuine due to financial constraints. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed as there was no evidence to support penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:06:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 918 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest on unsecured loans to a sister concern for assessment years 1987-88 and 1989-90. It confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and emphasized that changing the accounting method was not compliant with tax laws. The Tribunal dismissed the penalty imposition, noting the absence of concealment of income or submission of inaccurate particulars. The penalty order for 1987-88 lacked proper justification, and the change in accounting method was considered genuine due to financial constraints. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed as there was no evidence to support penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>