<?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 (11) TMI 221 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239044</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Authority&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was reasoned that the assessee&#039;s late claim for carrying forward losses was not done with the intention to deceive, as scrutiny assessments were ongoing, and all relevant information was disclosed. The court determined that the claim for set-off was based on actual losses suffered and did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal favored the assessee, with both legal questions decided against the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 03 Nov 2013 08:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 221 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239044</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Authority&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was reasoned that the assessee&#039;s late claim for carrying forward losses was not done with the intention to deceive, as scrutiny assessments were ongoing, and all relevant information was disclosed. The court determined that the claim for set-off was based on actual losses suffered and did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal favored the assessee, with both legal questions decided against the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>