<?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>Penalty for concealment of income Under Section 271(1) (c)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1391</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies where an assessee conceals salary income or furnishes inaccurate particulars; Section 192 allows an employee to furnish details of salary and TDS from other employers so a chosen employer may deduct tax on aggregate salary, but TDS is provisional and ultimate tax liability rests with the individual. In Pankaj Rathi the assessee omitted prior employment salary and TDS, was reassessed after information from the former employer, filed a corrected return, and faced penalty which the High Court held was properly attracted despite claims of inadvertence, observing that mala fide intent is not required for the civil penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:12:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:06:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=301871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty for concealment of income Under Section 271(1) (c)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1391</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies where an assessee conceals salary income or furnishes inaccurate particulars; Section 192 allows an employee to furnish details of salary and TDS from other employers so a chosen employer may deduct tax on aggregate salary, but TDS is provisional and ultimate tax liability rests with the individual. In Pankaj Rathi the assessee omitted prior employment salary and TDS, was reassessed after information from the former employer, filed a corrected return, and faced penalty which the High Court held was properly attracted despite claims of inadvertence, observing that mala fide intent is not required for the civil penalty.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:12:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>