<?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>2012 (1) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208466</link>
    <description>The court upheld the restoration of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a domestic company for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The court found that the company failed to disclose all relevant facts and did not meet the conditions for claiming bad debt deduction. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the legitimacy of the penalty imposed by the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208466</link>
      <description>The court upheld the restoration of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a domestic company for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The court found that the company failed to disclose all relevant facts and did not meet the conditions for claiming bad debt deduction. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the legitimacy of the penalty imposed by the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>