<?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 (2) TMI 16 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208924</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was unjustified as there was no conclusive evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. The Tribunal stressed that penalties should not be automatic and must be based on clear evidence of wrongdoing. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 16 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208924</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was unjustified as there was no conclusive evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. The Tribunal stressed that penalties should not be automatic and must be based on clear evidence of wrongdoing. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>