<?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>2010 (9) TMI 768 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207489</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty related to the loss on the sale of assets, citing lack of bona fide explanation. However, the penalty related to the bad debts addition was deleted as it did not involve concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 768 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207489</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty related to the loss on the sale of assets, citing lack of bona fide explanation. However, the penalty related to the bad debts addition was deleted as it did not involve concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>