<?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 (11) TMI 589 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218574</link>
    <description>The High Court reversed the Tribunal&#039;s decision and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the revised return was prompted by evidence collected by the tax authorities, not voluntary. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, restoring the penalty order and directing the assessee to pay costs of Rs.20,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 589 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218574</link>
      <description>The High Court reversed the Tribunal&#039;s decision and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the revised return was prompted by evidence collected by the tax authorities, not voluntary. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, restoring the penalty order and directing the assessee to pay costs of Rs.20,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>