<?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 863 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209596</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act. It was concluded that since the Assessing Officer treated the share application money as undisclosed income, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not be initiated simultaneously, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 863 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209596</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act. It was concluded that since the Assessing Officer treated the share application money as undisclosed income, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not be initiated simultaneously, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>