<?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>2013 (9) TMI 7 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236574</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding the assessee&#039;s explanation for received gifts unsatisfactory. The gifts were treated as unexplained credits, with the Tribunal deeming the explanation false and justifying the penalty under explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized the distinct yet related nature of penalty and assessment proceedings, affirming the validity of the penalty due to the lack of credible evidence provided by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 09:03:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 7 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236574</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding the assessee&#039;s explanation for received gifts unsatisfactory. The gifts were treated as unexplained credits, with the Tribunal deeming the explanation false and justifying the penalty under explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized the distinct yet related nature of penalty and assessment proceedings, affirming the validity of the penalty due to the lack of credible evidence provided by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>