<?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>2011 (10) TMI 522 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155030</link>
    <description>The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for disallowance of expenses claimed out of export sales was deleted as no concealment was found. Similarly, the penalty for an excess deduction claimed under section 80HHC was also deleted as there was no concealment of facts, and the revision was based on known facts and figures. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in both instances, ruling that the penalties were wrongly levied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:57:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172061" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 522 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155030</link>
      <description>The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for disallowance of expenses claimed out of export sales was deleted as no concealment was found. Similarly, the penalty for an excess deduction claimed under section 80HHC was also deleted as there was no concealment of facts, and the revision was based on known facts and figures. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in both instances, ruling that the penalties were wrongly levied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>