<?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>No Penalty for Property Dealer: Section 271(1)(c) Criteria Differ from Quantum Addition in Income Tax Case.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=15075</link>
    <description>Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - property dealer - addition on account of cash retained - The facts of the case may justify the addition in the quantum case, but the parameters to sustain the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) are different, and the assessee is entitled to benefit of doubt - no penalty - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:59:40 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:59:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=308580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>No Penalty for Property Dealer: Section 271(1)(c) Criteria Differ from Quantum Addition in Income Tax Case.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=15075</link>
      <description>Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - property dealer - addition on account of cash retained - The facts of the case may justify the addition in the quantum case, but the parameters to sustain the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) are different, and the assessee is entitled to benefit of doubt - no penalty - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:59:40 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=15075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>