<?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 232 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210714</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the assessee for a significant difference in stock valuation between the trading account and bank statement. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty, citing the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose accurate particulars and lack of bona fide explanation for the valuation difference. Legal precedents were relied upon to support the penalty imposition, which was sustained by the Tribunal due to clear evidence of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 232 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210714</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the assessee for a significant difference in stock valuation between the trading account and bank statement. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty, citing the assessee&#039;s failure to disclose accurate particulars and lack of bona fide explanation for the valuation difference. Legal precedents were relied upon to support the penalty imposition, which was sustained by the Tribunal due to clear evidence of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposition.</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=210714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>